Hillary may not be what you like, but she'll be a hell of a candidate

[mtnsnake]

if she runs.

Love her or hate her, this lady knows how to play the game. She also knows how to SPEAK, and speak clearly, and she won't take crap from the right wing during an election campaign. That's why they hate her so much, because she's tough as nails and she knows how to put them down...and she doesn't hestitate to put them down when she has to. She's done it before and literally made Rush cry once when she confronted him on stage about his remarks about Chelsea. She's also one of the ONLY Democrats ever to say nasty things about the right wingers on prime time TV, just like she did when she stuck up for Bill more than once...when no one else would stick up for him against those fuckers. Remember the "right wing conpiracy" she talked about? Good gawd that lady can communicate and boy she can be viscious in a matter-of-fact kind of way.

Folks, if she runs in 2008, be assured you won't see a repeat of the monumental mistakes of this last campaign of ours. She'll do everything in her power to win. You think Bill's brilliant? Wait till Hillary.

[hippiechick]

1. The RW will eat her alive.

Every woman hating, anti-femi-nazi, 'traditional woman' will crawl out of the woodwork to vilify her.

The Dems won't stand a chance.

I wish I could say otherwise, but she's just too much of a lightning rod.

[mtnsnake]

8. You're so wrong. You see, she won't let them.

She's taken them on before, when no one else had the guts to. So when you say the right wing will eat her alive, please back up your statement and show me why they'll eat her alive when they've never been able to do it before. They were totally ineffective against her in her previous campaign, and they feared her as much then as they do now.

Now if you said the right wing eats everyone else alive, then you might have a point.

[Skidmore]

17. I'd be more impressed if she had spent her first term in office

taking them on instead of standing in the Senate and chanting "Me,too."

[mtnsnake]

29. Good point.

Just the same, I think she'll surprise many of her naysayers here, should she get the nod, as far as her game plan.

[Skidmore]

46. At this point, if I'm going to vote for someone

who votes like a Republican, I'll vote for the R. But, when offered a candidate with a clear liberal record and stand on issues, I'll pick the Dem. Right now, Hillary sounds like an R.

[Pepperbelly]

48. if you would vote R ...

wtf are you doing HERE?

[Skidmore]

49. Read what I said carefully before you jump my case.

Sheesh!!

[Pepperbelly]

52. I did ...

And what I got was that if Hillary got the nomination, you would vote for the gop. If that isn't what you meant to say, I apologize for miscontruing your post.

If it IS what you meant, then I stand by my original post.

[AntiCoup2K4]

178. If you would vote for a candidate who consistently votes with Republicans.

...what are YOU doing here?

[Name removed]

226. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[goclark]

68. I was so impressed when I heard her speak last Fall

She was amazing!

She is one tough cookie.

If she could cut through the vast right wing conspiracy.

[Imagevision]

278. This lady knows how to play the game? - it's the "GAME" I'm concerned with

Bill and Sr. Clinton being the best buds lately. Hillary will be a Bush-lite with an IQ. -- big biz still runs the world and always will.

Bush was just somebody's dirty joke, and the joke was/is on us...!

[FrenchieCat]

88. Last I saw, they took her down a peg. If I remember that

impeachment hearing, it didn't go all that well until the very end!

I think they gave her months of worry, and her busband ended up pretty much walking the line....for the most part. Welfare reform, 800,000 dead rwandans, health care laughted out of the halls of congress......

Shit, they were even taking shit on their way out the door.

No, sorry, I'm not that impressed with how the Clintons handled the Assholes. Sorry!

[Clark2008]

187. You obviously know nothing about the red states

even the purplish-red ones.

She won't carry one red state - and we need at least two to win, Diebold or not.

We have to flip some red states and she simply won't be able to do this. Swing voters in these more conservative states will NOT vote for a woman during a war. They just won't.

[Pepperbelly]

246. I live in a red state and I think she ...

would have a better shot here than Kerry did and Kerry almost won it. Closer than anyone thought, at any rate.

[election_2004]

251. Arkansas is purple

Your state has trended red nationally, but elected Dems statewide fairly consistently. Yours is one of the "bellweather" states that's not as contentious as some of the other red states.

[Pepperbelly]

265. Perhaps but couldn't Al Gore have used those ...

6 little electoral votes in 2K?

[election_2004]

268. Yes, he could have....so why didn't he get them?

Yes, indeed.

So why didn't Gore carry Arkansas?

[Pepperbelly]

273. 'cause he ran away from Bill ...

instead of with him.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

299. "She won't let them?"

That implies to me that John McCain "let" Rove have his way with him.

That John Kerry "let" Rove have his way with him.

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. That's a topic for another thread (that, hopefully, will never see the light of day).

Here's why "they've never been able to do it before."

They're saving it for a rainy day...like, for example, when she runs for president.

You have every right to do a push back ("please back up your statement and show me why they'll eat her alive") because, after all, it's your thread.

But I think turnabout is fair play, so I'd like to see you "please back up your statement and show me why Hillary won't let Karl Rove get away with it."

Seriously, no sarcasm intended, I really would like to know.

[Solo_in_MD]

28. I concur

Which may get me vilified in this thread.

My positive opinion of her not withstanding, IMO her nomination would clinch the Whitehouse for the GOP. Way too many negatives, even with many traditional Dem voters.

The repukes would run a clean, low history candidate (John Roberts type) and cream us for 8 more years. Something I am not sure this country could stand. I would rather see a more viable candidate, preferably without DLC leanings.

[drummo]

148. Agree. No Hillary.

1. Nobody has been harsher on the GOP over the last 4 years than Al Gore. Hillary has been what? Me too. Me too. And you say she is a tough girl? No, she is an opportunist.

2.Come on! You say they couldn't get her in NY.
Guess what? They couldn't get Gore or Kerry in NY, either. Why? Because it's NY. She would have lost by a landslide in Arkansas or Florida.
Let me make a prediction: she will win re-election in 2006. Wow! Quite an achievement. Why doesn't she try in Vermont? That would be more difficult.

3.She is a very bad policymaker. She is not innovative and she simply doesn't have good judgement and foresight. Or did she have when she voted for the war?

If Hillary is the nominee I stay home. I'm fed up that politics overshadows policy during these damn campaigns. And Hillary is all about politics not policy.

[Inland]

34. Unlike, say, a white male war hero, who would get fair treatment?

I mean, come on, aren't we pretty much done with the idea that there is any aspect of someone's life that can't or won't be swiftboated?

Or that the repugs wouldn't manipulate warnings on terrorism?

Makes Poppy's tactics of dropping billions of dollars of pork on swing states, Willy Horton, and saying the Pledge at the RNCovention look like models of restraint.

I think one must ASSUME the attacks and pick someone who can take it and turn it around and FIGHT. Hillary is one of those people. She can take a punch and counterpunch.

[peace frog]

57. Right on, hippie...

I would gladly give up a kidney if it would assure a Dem president, but if Hillary is the candidate there is NO WAY she will be elected, for all the reasons listed above and below. SHE CANNOT WIN.

[0007]

119. Hillary will have the right wing for lunch on their best day.

No fucking way!

[election_2004]

121. You underestimate the mobilization power of the RW

Right now, we're seeing a short-term backlash because of Iraq and the Katrina debacle, and as a result, the influence of Far Right groups (i.e. the Christian Coalition) appears to be diminishing...

HOWEVER, a presidential nomination of Hillary Clinton alone would be enough to trigger and reinvigorate the Fundies, and cause them to spring back into action, with another domino effect spreading across the red states...nominate Hillary, and 2004 will have been a picnic for the Dems in comparison.

[0007]

144. Just like the freepers gave her no chance to win NY with the same logic

your producing with your opinion. Hillary won NY big.

[drummo]

149. Big deal.

In 2000 Gore won NY by 1.3 million votes without even campaiging there. So in the same year Hillary, the poor victim of Bill's zipper, manage to win a Senate seat in NY. Indredible, indeed.

NY is not the country. Any Dem would win in NY. Especially if her name is Clinton. But you can't say that about Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire etc.

[election_2004]

220. Did anyone but the freepers believe Hillary would lose in NY

I encounter a wide variety of people across the ideological spectrum, and I don't know anyone (aside from my dad, who is a partisan Republican) who thought Rick Lazio stood a chance in hell of winning NY's Senate seat. It's just too left-leaning of a state.

[laugle]

174. You underestimate Hillary!! N/T

[election_2004]

175. How so?

?

[laugle]

177. It's late....I'm tired, no more Hillary talk tonight,

we will have plenty of time to discuss it. Nighty night....

[election_2004]

181. Then why did you even bother to post?

But I look forward to hearing your answer to my question.

[laugle]

190. You didn't have to get snarky, last I checked

this was called "DEMOCRATIC" underground and I am free to post what I choose within the guidelines. Don't tell me you don't get tired, I know you do...anyway in answer to your question;

When I think of Hillary I think of Bill as well. 2 for the price of one. The Clinton's know how to play the political game. They know how to fire back tit for tat. With their strong intellect as well as that fighting spirit, I believe Hillary has a very good chance of winning the nomination.

Weather or not she could be elected is still in question.

I believe that many of us have overestimated the RW machine. Just think if Bush had not owned both houses of congress. Things would have been much different. His power would have been quite dissapated. Much of what has happened would never have come to pass. Especially the control of media.

I know we don't like to admit it, but we are affected by RW spin. Bush has gotten away with sooooo much that we sometimes get a bit paranoid. I'm not saying we don't have justification, just that we don't give enough credit to our people in this country.

In 2006, if we don't take back 1 or both Houses in congress, then I will agree with your analysis, but until then I am trying to keep a sense of hope that people will finally wake up.

As for the fundies, I say SCREW THEM. They are still a minority, and not all Christians are for Bush. In short, I hope this answers your question.

I just choose to see the glass half full not half empty.

[election_2004]

193. Not snarky, just confused why you took the time to post a blank entry

In 2006, if we don't take back 1 or both Houses in congress, then I will agree with your analysis, but until then I am trying to keep a sense of hope that people will finally wake up.

I'd love to see the Dems retake the U.S. Senate in 2006, because Harry Reid would make a much better majority leader than Bitch McConnell (no, not a typo on my part)...but even if that happens, it doesn't mean the Democrats will have an automatic lock on a similar Congressional victory in 2008.

What good will it be for the country to have Hillary Clinton in the White House if the Republicans regain a choke hold on Congress and take every opportunity they can to undercut her administration? Haven't we already been through that before?

[laugle]

195. Is your pick still Blanche Lincoln? Convince me

she is somehow a better choice than Hillary. And don't give me the baggage, yada, yada.

Next time someone tells you they are tired, don't be confused, believe them. I have taken the time to reply to your question.

[election_2004]

200. Well....

Yes, Lincoln is still my first-choice at this point, although I don't claim that she's the ONLY one who could give the Democrats a healthy victory.

The reasons why people should consider supporting Lincoln: she's done very well with what little the Democrats have to work with in the U.S. Senate, advocating for energy innovation, veterans benefits, and agricultural interests into legislation that's pretty much tailored to the GOP's narrow agenda. Her speaking skills are top-notch, and she has the charisma necessary for a successful presidential candidate. She won't be perceived by Middle America as an ultraLiBRUL "feminazi." She can reframe values talk without sounding preachy. She's well-respected by even those who are diametrically-opposed to her beliefs. She's a strong and vocal advocate for an independent judiciary, and is able to make that clear when communicating with voters. She won't get the votes of partisan Republicans, but the more level-headed Republicans in D.C. won't resent her and will be willing to make some compromises more willingly on policy. She's a working mother and grew up in an unprivileged family - - Americans will relate to that! She would be a positive force in presidential politics, which Americans would find refreshing - - she is one of several potential Democratic nominees who could swing several of the red states into the blue column, and give positive momentum to other Democrats in downticket races. She'd help the Democrats make electoral inroads with rural America. The Republicans have zero ammunition to attack Blanche with on national security...she admittedly has limited foreign policy experience, so they can't accuse her of padding her resumee like they did to Gore and Kerry - - but aside from McCain, who else from the GOP lineup could boast shining foreign policy credentials for the GOP ticket?...and Lincoln hasn't voted more controversially on foreign policy than Hillary or any other Democratic hopeful (with the exception of Feingold). As far Blanche's national security policy in a legislative context, she's been very strong as far as making a case for our troops' needs and for our country's security infrastructure.

No, her record on other legislation certainly isn't perfect, but neither is Hillary's. If Blanche picked a running mate like Russ Feingold, Russ would probably be a VERY strong influence on her as far as shaping her administration's policies to be more progressive. A Lincoln/Feingold ticket in particular would really bridge the divide between so many of the progressives and moderates (often at odds with one another) who have the common ground of dissatisfaction with Bush's administration.

However, you have obviously already made up your mind about Hillary, so there is no point in me trying to convince you otherwise. There's a solid chance that she would hurt the Democratic Party as its standard-bearer, but you and others around here just don't want to see it.

Unless we ("we" meaning people who support different candidates) start listening to each other, it's going to be a very bloody and potentially irreperable presidential primary season!

[Pepperbelly]

247. I don't think Blanche is close to ready for prime time ...

And as a constituent, I like her quite a bit. It's actually Pryor that I am coming to despise.

[election_2004]

250. Why not?

What is it about Blanche that you believe would make her a poor candidate?

[Pepperbelly]

264. Not that she would be a bad candidate as much as ...

I just don't think she's ready yet.

There are some things about Blanche, as a constituent of hers that I really like --her attention to the opinions of the folks at home is a very good example. I have contacted the office with concerns in the past and every time, within a week or so, I get a detailed letter from her regarding my concerns, very specific in noting where Blanche and I agree and detailing her reasoning in the places where we did not. She treats her constituents with respect and has not, in my experience, resorted to form letters or sarcasm as some do.

Her positions are generally well-reasoned and usually agreeable to her constituents' palette.

She is a good, workmanlike campaigner but her speaking skills would require far more work before hitting the big stage. She is still quite young and as far as the Presidency, I am unsure that her background in her early years as a political functionary for a Congressman speaks to what is needed in the White House. After her time on Bill Alexander's staff, she was a Congresscritter and then, after a hiatus during which she had her babies and raised to to an age that they are in school, etc., she ran for the Senate when Dale Bumpers retired.

I like Blanche a lot but she has spent no time managing an organization of more than a few hundred people. I think she is an asset in the Senate and I would hate to lose her there. She represents my state and does it well.

[election_2004]

267. Hmmmm....

Some people could make almost similar points about Hillary Clinton (and her constituent services and assets as a senator).

[Pepperbelly]

274. see ... at this point ...

I see that this is a spurious discussion in toto because, as I cited numerous times, the circumstance is not yet known and the cirumstance will drive as surely as the personalities.

These are my impressions of Blanche, someone with whom I have been familiar during her entire career. Believe what you want. It is immaterial to me one way or the other.

[election_2004]

280. You say you've followed her for her entire career...

...and you're also a constituent of hers. So perhaps you might be more critical of her than most? I tend to find myself doing a similiar thing, being extra hard on Kohl and Feingold (even though I love Feingold to death, and he single-handedly brought me out of depression after I attended one of his listening sessions in my hometown!!! ;)), and even when I find myself agreeing with them on policy...I'm extremely critical of Governor Doyle, and in fact, I can't say I'd vote for him again since he's gone back on many campaign promises...but he is using his power a lot better than McClueless - - er, I mean - - McCallum, did.

I'm giving you my perspective as a voter who splits his ticket between Democrats, Independents, and the occasional moderate/maverick Republican.

Blanche really gave me hope after the 2004 election (the results of which almost emotionally destroyed me), when she began talking publicly about strategy and policy, and how to link the two together so it will resonate with Middle America - - and I suspect she would bring in a lot of other Independent voters (as well as *independent-minded* Republicans non-wingnuts] and Democrats) other than just myself. Quite frankly, Blanche has that connection with people in rural America that Hillary just doesn't have. Hillary screams "Northeastern Liberal" (even though she's actually moderate) and "carpetbagger"...and that certainly won't help Democratic insurgents or weak Dem incumbents in purple/red areas of the country.

Of course, I don't agree with every vote that Blanche has cast, but no U.S. Senator has a perfect voting record...and when it comes to a national election, a realistic candidate from the Senate can't vote as progressively as Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy).

No, we don't know whether Senator Lincoln will or won't run yet. She's probably taking her time to consider it, as are a lot of the people who could run but who haven't made their decision for certain quite yet. I'm hoping Blanche will go campaign for other Southern Democrats as the '06 midterms heat up (Beebe at the very least, but also hopefully Ford, McCaskill, the Nelsons, Cox, and Bredesen), because I think people in her region would respond well to her personality and her credibility, and she would be one of the current officeholders to significantly help her party chip away at the GOP Senate/House majorities.

Of course, whether Blanche and/or Hillary run for president or not, we don't know who else is going to be in the mix. Clark could certainly make some positive waves, and Warner also seems to be an up-and-coming political figure (and also neither of them is my first-choice, both would be A HELL OF A LOT more convincing that Senator Clinton would, at the presidential level).

I just find it presumptuous and rather insulting when people presume that Hillary Clinton is the *ONLY* Democratic woman whom Americans would be willing to elect at this point in time.

Of course the media and the elite want people to think that...it's in their best interests to put Hillary Clinton in the White House, or at the very least, to use her presence in a presidential race to spur Republican fundraising efforts against Dems across the country.

[The Wielding Truth]

282. She is too easy a target .The RW is already armed. They hate her.

[Pepperbelly]

287. They hate all of us I will not allow those rat-fucking pisspots veto

any candidate in the Democratic Party.

Fuck them.

Hard and slow.

Grudge fuck them.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. Forget 2008 for now! Don't lose sight of 2006. Republicans go home!

[OzarkDem]

62. You're reading my mind

:evilgrin:

[bunkerbuster1]

102. Thank you.

Any time spent dreaming about an '08 race is stealing time/effort from where we need to be focused now.

[HereSince1628]

3. Clinton is one of the DLC power elite,

I'll be working for someone else, hopefully someone less embedded in the right of the party will emerge.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. No she won't.

Too many people have made up their minds about her, and it's not a favorable opinion.

Further, she does not energize the left nearly as much as she energizes the right, unlike Bush who energized both equally.

[mtnsnake]

9. Then how do you explain how the polls had her as being able to

beat Bush, had she chosen to run in 2004?

[SteppingRazor]

11. How do YOU explain polls...

that have her losing to McCain in 2008?

Polls alone won't do it. And while I think it's intellecctually dishonest to just toss her aside as some sort of rightwing "DLCer," neither do I think it's perfectly legitimate to think otherwise.

What I do think is that she has been in Washington a very long time.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. Polls before the election or after the election?

Hindsight would give just about anyone the victory over Bush in 2004, except Kerry, which is to say Hillary hasn't endured the Rove smear machine yet.

[mtnsnake]

14. Before the election, I believe.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. Please cite them.

I've love to see them.

Further, a bunch of before the election polls said John Kerry would beat Bush, and we all know how that turned out.

Of course, I think the anti-gay marriage amendment being on the ballot in key states such as Ohio and Missouri made all the difference in 2004. When something passes as overwhelming as it did, it's hard not to see that as a driving factor for at least the 70,000 votes Bush won by in Ohio.

[mtnsnake]

22. What is this, a quiz? I'm going from memory. If you'd like to prove me

wrong, then YOU cite something that says otherwise.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

40. How can I cite a poll that doesn't exist?

Meanwhile, you ARE citing a poll that doesn't exist.

You made the claim that polls exist pre-2004 election that show Hillary would beat Bush. You cite the evidence, not me. I can't prove that something doesn't exist.

[sendero]

104. The polls...

... had Dean doing very well util the Iowa caucus. I watch polls, we all do, but you have to be VERY CAREFUL which conclusions you reach from which polls.

I'm firmly in the "Hillary energizes the right, doesn't excite the left" camp. Because that is a perfect description of her. And I just don't see how she could win, I could be wrong, but I just don't see it.

Also, I think many, many people see her as the consummate politician just when the country is finally getting sick and tired of consummate politicians.

[lancdem]

5. I think she'll be strong if she runs

I don't think she's the only Dem who can win, but I believe she likely has a good shot.

[Mojambo]

6. She might be a fine candidate

As a president I'm very concerned that her allegiance will not be to regular middle class Americans.

She can win, but I don't know how much of a step up we're looking at.

But we've gone round and round on that issue and we'll have plenty of time for that bloodbath in the primaries.

[HereSince1628]

7. sorry, double posted that...

[SteppingRazor]

10. Like my avatar said in 1974:

"One of the strangest things about these five downhill years of the Nixon Presidency is that despite all the savage excesses committed by the people he chose to run the country, no real opposition or realistic alternative to Richard Nixon's cheap and mean-hearted view of the American Dream has ever developed. It is almost as if that sour 1968 election rang down the curtain on career politicians.

This is the horror of American politics today -- not that Richard Nixon and his fixers have been crippled, convicted, indicted, disgraced and even jailed -- but that the only available alternatives are not much better; the same dim collection of burned-out hacks who have been fouling our air with their gibberish for the last twenty years."

Yup.

[maxsolomon]

13. in the general i would vote for her

but not in the primaries.

Wes Clark is the way to victory in 2008.

[MadHound]

15. Just what we don't need

Another pro-war, 'Pug lite, DLC corporate whore. Sorry, but I think that she will be bad for this country, and not the type of person that we need in the Oval office. I predict that if Hilary wins the nod in the primaries, the left will be staying home, or voting Green in droves.

Sure, she will be better than Bushco, but not by much, and the differences will be more of style than of substance. We need real change in this country, and Hillary is not the one to provide it.

[AJH032]

76. Corporate whore? Wrong.

Hillary is NOT a "corporate whore." Nobody who supports OBRA 93 (raising corporate taxes) and opposes CAFTA can be labeled corporate. Sorry, that's just unfair.

[MadHound]

90. Sure she is, she supports the largest corporate giveaway in history

The Iraq War. Not only did she vote for the IWR, she continues to vote for every single funding provision of the war, and now, flying completely against the wishes of her constituents, she is coming out in favor of expanding the war and adding more troops. She is indeed bringing home the bacon for her corporate masters. And that is just the beginning friend, just the beginning.

[HughBeaumont]

96. Uh, she supports offshoring.

I'll never vote for someone who supports offshoring. Bad for this country, great for rich people.

Hillary clears outsourcing air

Hillary Clinton made it apparent where she stood on outsourcing during her India visit, in an attempt perhaps to clear the Indian misgivings received during the Kerry campaign. "There is no way to legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue," she told an audience of Indian big-wigs. She pointed out that there were 3 billion people who feel left behind and are trying to attack the modern world in the hope of turning the clock back on globalization. "It is not far-fetched to imagine ... if the Indian miracle would be the one of choice of those who feel left behind," said Hillary.

Hillary has been at the forefront in defending free trade and outsourcing. During the height of the anti-outsourcing backlash in the US last year, she faced considerable flak for defending Indian software giant Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) for opening a center in Buffalo, New York. "We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences," Hillary said firmly, despite inevitably invoking the ire of the anti-free trade brigade.

Hillary further clarified her position during her recent visit as well as solutions that could be beneficial to both countries. She urged Indian industries to invest more in the US to allay negative outpourings over outsourcing of American jobs to India. "I have to be frank. People in my country are losing their jobs and the US policymakers need to address this issue," she said. She ruled out that the anti-India feeling was a reflexive reaction, and explained that the feeling was more because of the imbalance in trade between the two countries, which in turn caused anguish among Americans about the nature of the economic relationship.

No, Hil. It's because offshoring only benefits the RICH, who pocket the savings and DON'T create better paying jobs for American workers as a result, contrary what the laissez-faire morans in the DLC theorize.

[tabasco]

86. I will not vote for any Democrat that voted for this fkking war.

Both of my senators were wise enough to vote against it. The whole world was taking to the streets to stop this shit - - and they give a mental midget like the Chimp authority to go to war ?!??

:wtf:

NO WAY do I vote for someone who voted for war in Iraq.

NO.FUCKING.WAY

[Totally Committed]

16. Bullshit.

I will fight her nomination until my last breath. Count on it.

TC

[Catherine Vincent]

20. And if she wins it anyway, can we count on your vote?

[Totally Committed]

32. If I am still around in '08, and she is the nominee,

The earth will have needed to shift on its axis for me to vote for her. I will be staying home that day, most probably. She won't need my vote, either way... she'll either win big (if the fix is already in), or she'll lose big. My one vote will not tip the scale.

As someone whose policy it has always been to never say never... I am saying unless something miraculous happens... never.


TC

[mtnsnake]

26. Calm down. I'm just saying that I think she'll run a great campaign if

she happens to get the nod. I'm not saying she's the best presidential material out there and I'm not even saying she's my favorite person to run. Clark would be that. It's just that from what I've seen of Hillary, I think she's a hell of a communicator and a hell of a fighter who doesn't like to lose.

[Larkspur]

100. No she won't. She'll do what Kerry did. Try to please swing voters by

acting more Republican than the Repukes.

[Mr Rabble]

33. TC- You rock! Im with you on this.

Just Say NO! to Hillary.

[leveymg]

19. "A hell of a candidate" - says it all.

No Dem candidate evokes higher negatives than Hillary. Look, there's a lot to like about her, but she drives Republicans nutz and that's an airborne transmittable disease.

Let's find a good, solid progressive-populist Governor or Senator to run for Prez. Hillary can be Secretary of State, but she'll face a tough confirmation battle.

[Ian David]

21. Sorry, I'm voting for Gay Penguin / Gay Fruit Fly in 2008

[arewenotdemo]

66. cool flag

gays/lesbians have all the fun

[Crunchy Frog]

69. I'm holding out for the Wendell and Cass ticket.

Go gay penguins!!!!

[proud patriot]

23. I'm not a fan of Hillary

but if she is the nominee, I will vote for her
because the RW HATE her so much .

[Pepperbelly]

53. They do for a fact.

She HAS to be doing something right for those rat-bastards to so despise, hate and fear her.

[bee]

24. it doesnt matter what kind of candidate she is.

Those who have decided... have decided.
She cant even unify her own party. Besides she thinks Im an idiot, being that Im a loony-left liberal and all. So Id rather eat glass than vote for her, personally.

edit to add: If somehow she got the nod... it would be a horrible conflict for me - but I just dont see her winning either Iowa or NH.

[Crunchy Frog]

70. I guess I'd vote for her if I thought she had a snowball's chance in Hell

of winning in my state. In the likely event that she didn't, I think I would probably go ahead and vote Green.

[Kazak]

25. NBG!!!

:)

[mtnsnake]

27. Sorry, I don't know what that means.

[Kazak]

41. Re:

Nobody. But. GORE!!!

:)

[mtnsnake]

47. Thanks for the clarification! Gore is one of my faves, too.

:toast:

[drummo]

150. So if Hillary and Gore are in the race

who would you vote for?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

171. Iraq, Patriot Act and tax cuts for the rich...

Hillary is 0 for 3 and Al is 3 for 3. Above and beyond that he has a vision on global warming and has done more than anyone else on the planet, by personally negotiating Kyoto. Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt and Gore!

[mtnsnake]

236. If the vote was today I'd go with Gore, but all I'm saying is that Hillary

would surprise the hell out of a lot of people here on DU with her methodology as a candidate. IMO, she'd prove to be a powerful & formidable campaigner, which is something we need to have happen, considering the mistake-riddled campaign we just experienced. If she runs, at least we won't have to suffer through watching our candidate turn the other cheek and take a beating at the hands of right wing lies. She won't hesitate to hit back and humiliate them if they try that shit with her. Tough lady and man does she have a way with words.

She'd stick up for herself.

[election_2004]

257. You've obviously made up your mind about her

So further dialogue with you on the importance of red/blue electoral strategy is fruitless.

[sybylla]

30. Seems to me you could say much of the same things about Sen. Feingold

And, lucky for us, he voted against the "patriot" act and against the criminal invasion of a sovereign nation on an obvious lies. And, what's more, he's hugely popular with independents and a small percentage of pukes while maintaining a populist progressive stand on issues. No puke-lite candidate there.

Even if you could convince me Hil won't pull a Kerry (Clinton, after all put the C in DLC) why settle for a centrist corporate ass-kisser when there are much better candidates afoot.

[mtnsnake]

31. I'm not trying to debate her qualifications. I'm talking about how she'd

campaign, IMO.

[sybylla]

36. Yeah, I got that.

And I'm adding that Feingold is a tough campaigner with all the benefits of being an actual Democrat. Proud to be liberal with a spine to boot, if you get my drift.

[Inland]

35. I want candidates who can campaign.

Hillary is a tough, seasoned campaigner. Whether she runs for president or not, or even if I vote for her or not, I respect the skills because there is no such thing as a good candidate but a bad campaigner.

In that vein, others, like Dean, have something to offer. Others, like Clark, had better get themselves an education. Just saying.

[mtnsnake]

43. That's where she'd be strong. I should've said "hell of a campaigner",

instead of "hell of a candidate", I suppose, although I think she could take care of both nouns.

[AntiCoup2K4]

37. Appeasement is NOT an option in 2006 OR 2008

Anyone who even remotely supports neocon fascist imperialist policies must be eliminated from office, and most certainly cannot be promoted under any cicumstances.

[lumpy]

42. No woman has a chance

of becoming president at this time in history. Sure, she has the qualifictions, but what does that matter. Ask others what her chances would be. She could play a very valuable role as Sec. of State.
Until women are fully accepted as equal to the task as men are, no way.

[AntiCoup2K4]

78. She does NOT have the qualifications

Let's drop that myth right now. She's a less than one term senator whose only previous "experience" was being married to some guy.

HOW is that qualification for President of the United States of America??

Or Secretary of State, for that matter.

It has nothing to do with her being a woman. Although that's probably reason enough for the right wingers.

Actually, now that I see you actually typed "qualifictions" that's really a far more accurate statement than you intended. Hillary as a viable candidate has been based on FICTION from day one.

[lumpy]

107. H.Clinton DOES have the qualifications.

She has spent her entire life in public service, education & politics:
Student leader & National Honors Soc.
Wellesley College
Yale Law School
Children's Defense Fund
Judiciary adviser House of Reps.
U.of Ark> Law school faculty
Rose law firm
Board of Legal Services
Experience in diplomatic contacts as First Lady
and a host of other public service roles concerning social reforms
as well as a successfull author.

Even FDR couldn't top her qualifications for being equiped for leadership roles. No fiction, my friend.
And the drawback is the fact she is a woman. Who would know it better than a woman who knows the prejudices experienced by that very fact of being a woman such as me. We have come a long way, but the prejudice still remains.

[AntiCoup2K4]

110. So being a lawyer qualifies you to be President???

Horseshit.

I don't have anything against lawyers exactly, but there's far too damn many of them in government as it is. If the next president wanted to nominate Hillary as Attorney General based on her legal experience, that would meet her qualifications much better. And she's at least as qualified as Assmunch Roberts for a Supreme Court appointment. But none of this qualifies her to serve in the Executive office of this country.

[lumpy]

115. Well did you bother to research

her qualifications let alone those I bothered to try and educate you about? She has been much much than just a lawyer. None of her continuing experience in public service in the social areas, her diplomatic ties, her active role as first lady, an educator, a working THINKER is qualification enough for anyone? Being a hack in the Congress does not always make for leadership. Horseshit to think that this woman has just been the 'wife of some guy'. She is her own woman, just ask Bill.

[drummo]

151. She is a successfull author

because she had the subject that was popular: how the whole Monica-Bill-Hillary melodrama played out.

It's totally ridiculous but the American people are buying this shit.

[Pepperbelly]

154. So what do you think?

Should the founders have made sure to include the approval of ol' drummo as part of the requirements?

And what particular shit are you complaining of?

[Pepperbelly]

123. Bullshit. Bull fucking shit!

These are the qualifications. A natie born citizen who has attained the age of 35 and who garners the most electoral votes in the electoral college.

That is it.

There are no other qualifications.

You may think that her experience is insufficient or whatever but that does not disqualify her for the office.

[drummo]

153. Yep. And this way

the biggest asshole can become president if he/she is packaged well during the campaign.

Welcome to the American version of democracy.

[Totally Committed]

51. Right on! n/t

TC

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. why this fixation with Senator Clinton by the RIGHT and the LEFT?

[Skidmore]

44. For the following reason, I believe:

1. She's the right's dream candidate cause they would love to run against her husband again through her.

2. The left finds her voting record to be opportunistic and does not was the Rs picking the Ds candidate for them.

3. Personally, I don't want another Bush - Clinton race, particularly if the Rs shove Jebbie out there.

[Pepperbelly]

56. I think your reasoning is highly flawed.

I think that the right wing both fears and needs her. The righties can whistle past the graveyard all they want but they have yet to win a political fight with Bill Clinton since the Democrats deserted him during the fight over health care reform. They would use her candidacy to raise lots of money but at the back of their reptile, hissing brains, they fear her the way mice fear cats.

And they should. The Clintons have been the only successful Democratic pols since FDR to win two terms in office.

They are whistling past the graveyard.

So far as the lefties, if they would do rudimentary research and approached it with a shred of honesty and fairness, they would note that for every vote that Hillary made that displeased them, she made 20 others that were exactly, spot-on correct. I am not hopeful, though, that they will be willing to drop such an elegantly simple and enjoyable story even though the facts contradict it in a big way.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

172. All issues are not created equal...

At the Take Back America conference this spring in DC, Arianna Huffington said that she had a litmus test for 2008: the Dem candidate must be honest and realistic about Iraq.

Hillary has been neither and continues to be an apologist for an insane invasion,an inept occupation and a non-existent reconstruction. The war never had any non-political justification, period. Kerry, Clinton and Edwards all voted for it and still prefer linguistic gymnastics over reality and strong leadership. They flunk.

I will support a candidate with backbone.

P.S. All northern senators, pragmatically speaking, are non-starters. JFK was the exception that proves the rule.

[Clark2008]

213. Correction: Hillary didn't win the White House

Bill did.

And there's a HUGE difference.

[JABBS]

39. I'd prefer a Southern Dem

... I think some combination of a Southerner and a Midwesterner, or a Southerner and a bulldog like Biden, would be a better choice than anything with Hillary.

The conservatives will shred her, and she'll defend herself in a shrill way, spend the entire campaign trying to rise above the noise machine, and get crushed in a general election.

[ChiciB1]

60. We've Got One.... His Name Is John Edwards!!!

And he knows how to campaign too! Plus he seems to understand PEOPLE who are in need!

Please, please don't run Hillary! Please think about America FIRST!

For crying out loud, aren't there any other people besides Clintons and Bushies????

[JABBS]

106. I like Edwards, but ...

He was dreadful as a veep candidate in 2004.

[IowaGuy]

157. dreadful? Could you give me some examples?

Is it your opinion that Cheney was a better VP candidate?
Not flamin' you...I just don't see what you seem to be seeing...

Have you listened to Bush lately? Now that his poll #'s are in the tank, he's trying to boost his image by regurgitating what Edwards was saying in the election....

[JABBS]

186. why Edwards was a bad veep candidate

He did a bad job sticking up for Kerry. He did a bad job staying in the news after the Democrats convention, he was tepid against Cheney in the debate.

He didn't help Kerry win a single state. He had little affect on the rural vote, and he didn't help Kerry carry any purple states in the Southeast.

I liked Edwards during the primary campaign, and I thought he'd be a great veep candidate. But if I had been Kerry, I would have added Richardson, for geography and general strategy.

I hope Edwards does better this time around.

[mtnsnake]

237. He was dreadful because he wasn't the same John Edwards that we saw

in the primaries so eloqently coming out of nowhere and slamming the Bush regime.

As the VP candidate, Edwards was a shadow of his former self, barely a little mouse. He should've lambasted the right wing tactics, but he didn't even try to explain what was going on.

[kenny blankenship]

45. Too bad American women hate her

kinda makes it a moot point what kind of "strong" DLC oriented campaign she might put up.

[Totally Committed]

54. In the aftermath of Katrina, the last thing this country needs

is more DLC "Reagan-lite" trickle-down economic bullshit. The "screw-the-little-guy" ideology will not wash in a time when we saw such poverty, classism, and racism right in front of our eyes.

I say again, I will resist any candidate from the DLC, and fight to my last breath against them. There must be social and economic justice for the poor and people of color NOW.

NO to Hillary.

TC

[July]

98. Some American women hate her.

I know a gang of old ladies in Buffalo (IOW, Hillary's constituents) who adore her, and beyond that, volunteered when she ran for office, go to hear her speak whenever she's there, and bought her book.

They view her as smart and tough, like themselves.

[lumpy]

111. Hillary is smart and tough

and has more knowledge, education and experience in public life than George Bush or John Edwards combined. And women do respect her. The ones who know her background experience and qualifications, that is.
Until women are acknowledged as having the know-how and strength for the job it just isn't going to happen. Pity.

[MrSlayer]

50. There are people in other families capable of being President.

I don't want Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton first of all. Secondly I don't believe a woman has a shot regardless of party, she would get killed. Third, I just don't like her. She blows in the wind and doesn't stand for anything. I'm tired of career politicians and all their corporate suck-up bullshit.

[mattomjoe]

55. By the time W's term is up in 2008

we will have had either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House for 20 YEARS! It's time for some fresh faces.

[AJH032]

58. Make that 28 years...

George HW Bush was VP from 1981-1989.

[AntiCoup2K4]

113. So you want to go for 36, then?

..And you don't see anything wrong with that??? :wtf:

[AJH032]

277. The problem is the Bush family, NOT the Clinton family

people here on DU and elsewhere talk about a Bush-Clinton line of succession in the White House. That's bullshit. A Clinton has only been in power in Washington ONE TIME. We Should be worrying about the BUSH family succession, not the myth of a Bush-Clinton line. Bush Sr. has been VP, President. George W is now president. Jeb is next in line, followed by his son George P. Bush. Don't throw the Clinton family (which really has only 2 real political threats) into this nepotistic mess.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

59. No way-- Hillary would split the party, cause utter disaster

It's very difficult to win an election if you infuriate your base. Quite a few posts have focused on the way the Rove whispering campaign and well-oiled smear machine would severely damage her, the way folks in Red and swing states would shy away-- and with some reason. But IMHO a far greater strike against her is the way she's alienated the Democratic base.

It's not just that she voted for the IWR-- that, if isolated, could be forgiven if she modified her position later. But she hasn't-- she still supports that bloody swamp in the Middle East and even wants to extend US participation in it. Not just be sending in even more forces, but by baying loudly for an attack on Syria and Iran. Are you kidding me? Hillary's an even worse warmonger than the neocrazies in Bush's corner. Plus, she's going majorly sycophantic on her newest corporatist crusade, vigorously supporting even more outsourcing of US jobs and fewer worker protections when we're already buckling as it is. Many news organizations originally portrayed her positions as "triangulating" toward the middle; in fact, she's merely catered to conservatives who wouldn't support her anyway under any circumstances, while tossing mud in the eye of progressives.

There are plenty of mainstream, antiwar Democratic progressives who could win in 2008, in no small part b/c of the unpopularity of Iraq. Wes Clark comes to mind, as does Al Gore, Barbara Boxer-- quite a few names come to mind.

[malachibk]

61. She won't get my vote, though

n/t

[babyk]

63. the next president has already been decided

by the oligarchy.
I doesnt matter who we like.

[zippy890]

64. No thank you

too middle of the road, she's not getting my vote

[sepia_steel]

65. Playing the game

is all she's good for. I want someone who seems to really give a fuck. To me that ain't hillary.

[Clarkie1]

67. We need to bring more people into the party

with the stength of our ideas, not drive potential Dems away with a divisive nominee with so much political baggage.

[Stinky The Clown]

71. She will birng up the whole blind RW hatred of everything Clinton

And they'll beat her to death with it.

Yes, she's tough. And that's admirable.

But she's not tough eough - no one is - to withstand that sort of emotional, blind, raging, hatred. It is there. It is real.

So yeah ... she'll stand tough. Tough as nails. To the very end.

The 20-point-vote-deficit end.

[Cosmocat]

72. You people need to WAKE UP !!!

First, I can accept that people who lean further left are not happy with SOME of her politics ... So be it ... However, if you feel that strongly about it, and won't vote for her (IF it comes to that), well, then you deserve another 4 years like the 8 we are now going to have to live through ...

Second ... All this "the right hates her," and she is too polarizing BS ... YOU ARE BUYING THE R SPIN !!! The right is DEATH scared of her, and it shows in the way they try to marginalize her ... SO WHAT if they "hate" her ... Like, you think any Rs broke ranks for Kerry or Gore ??? The right will whip the retards into a frenzy regardless of who the candidate is ...

Two elections in a row they had the choice between an intelligent and decent man and a complete idiot, and they went for the idiot ... OBVIOUSLY, if they vote for THIS puke, Rs will vote R regardless of who is on either side of the ticket ... SO, Hillary isn't going to LOST R votes, they are already lost ...

Third ... Hillary has great strengths ... From a vote perspective, she WILL bring woman over, and she will swing back what has been lost in minorities ... Further, she WILL have the bonus of being tied to the Big Dog ... Things are going to be VERY, VERY bad in 2008, and Hillary will be someone who people will know is familiar with the white house AND who brings a husband who can be part of the solution ... The Rs can spin, but again, things will be SO bad at that point that a two for one of her and BC will be something that A LOT of people are going to be ready for ...

THAT BEING SAID ... I am leaning real hard toward a Dean or Clark president/Hillary VP ticket ... I think that will be a drop dead winner, and will also set up a VERY strong presidential run by Hillary down the road ...

[mtnsnake]

80. Well said!

One of your points you make, that she'll bring women over, is ever so true. She did it in my area when she ran for Senate and she had women flocking behind her like I've never seen before. Not only were her signs plastered all over Democrats lawns but there was a huge number of them in the lawns of Independents and swing Republicans. Nothing wrong with that!

[sepia_steel]

105. Don't tell us we need to wake up.

We don't like the way she votes, PERIOD. She's no progressive.

[Pepperbelly]

125. her votes stack against any of them in the Senate.

Educate yourself. SmartVoter has it all. Check it out. Her record is supurb. No one will EVER vote eactly how I want them to or how YOU want them to. If you are waiting for that, you're walking backward.

[election_2004]

129. So what do you propose the Dems do....???

So what should the Democrats do when the GOP Spin Machine begins campaigning through the red states shouting, "Hillary Clinton voted to keep partial-birth abortion legal!"

[Pepperbelly]

135. Give me a break ...

We do not have a clue as to the circumstances at that point in time and personally, I believe that the Democrat culd well carry an FDR mandate into office.

What she should do is tell the truth, loudly, constantly, aggressively, and not allow the bullshit to cook even two hours. If you did not observe our candidates in the last two elections fail to do those very things, then you missed why they lost.

[election_2004]

156. Telling the truth isn't enough...

Sorry, but there are some votes that Hillary has cast during her time in the Senate that are just going to work against her in Middle American and in the South. The same way they worked against Kerry.

[mtnsnake]

238. Telling the truth would've made the difference, if only they

told it with passion and if only they used truth to stick up for themselves in 2004. They had no passion and they did no explaining. By not vociferously using the truth to explain what was going on, they let the right wing bullshit machine shit all over them on a consistent basis.

[election_2004]

256. I agree that Kerry didn't respond quick enough....

But he still COULD HAVE won over several of the states that will be automatically predisposed against Senator Clinton.

[Pepperbelly]

295. ad you know all this precisely how? nt

[AntiCoup2K4]

114. "Rs will vote R regardless of who is on either side of the ticket..."

I agree completely.

So why the HELL should we run a DLC candidate who panders to the right wing agenda?

Doesn't it make far more sense to run a REAL Democrat and bring back the votes of those who were bored by Gore and repelled by Kerry, and stayed home the last two elections?

[Pepperbelly]

127. Have you ever considered that ...

there are well intentioned people who simply do not buy your position?

She has a supurb record. There is no candidate that can be produced that will fit everyone's picture of what they should be.

[election_2004]

132. So the Dems SHOULDN'T appeal to swing voters?

Yeah, that worked real well for Mondale, didn't it?

[Pepperbelly]

137. You are advocating sharpshooting right into a Kerryesque ...

scenario.

Do you know why Bill Clinton was able to fish so effectively from what the gop had considered their private lake?

Bill does and he has spoken of it. I think that Hillary could pretty well meet that challenge.

[election_2004]

140. Bill Clinton....

...when he ran in 1992, Bill did not have the sordid national reputation that Hillary currently has.

Bill definitely had winning communication skills with voters, but his skeletons had not risen to the surface yet, back then.

And you cannot seriously suggest to us that appealing to "swing voters" wasn't an integral part of Bill Clinton's '92 strategy.

[Pepperbelly]

143. Of course he did ...

and I am at the point now who is your dog in this fight?

Sordid, btw, to Freepers. There is nothing sordid about Hillary at all and I think your remark is actually libelous. What are you going to use to substantiate some "sordid" behavior on the part of Hillary Clinton.

So tell about you. Who is the great hope for the Democrats?

[election_2004]

159. Hillary has more baggage than almost anyone else

Whether her involvement in these sordid (and yes, that's how they'll be described) incidents are true or not, look at all the scandals Hillary has been implicated in: Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, Chinagate, Anthony Pellicano, Ricky Ray Rector, Marc Rich, Ernest Dymond, David Watkins, Billy Dale. And they're just going to keep coming and coming and coming. No one person can weather what they have in store for Hillary.

My guess is that several of these scandals have been overblown, while others are incidents where Bill and Hillary probably engaged in some unethical and possibly illegal behavior - - but now their cult-like supporters are trying to cover up the Clintons' past antics all in the name of "winning." I find it hard to believe that Hillary has been squeaky clean throughout all of this. Either way, the point is that our country doesn't need all of this garbage to pop up during another presidential election to keep voters distracted away from the REAL ISSUES. Those of us at DemocraticUnderground may care about the legitimate political issues, but Joe Schmuckatelli in "Moral America" is going to be easy prey for the corporate tabloids. When these scandals resurface (and they will!), the Clintons will be perceived by many Americans outside of the GOP base as "sordid," even when many of the scandals are based on lies and half-truths.

Can you name ONE OTHER CANDIDATE from the Democratic Party who has the same extent of controversies and baggage just waiting to bite them in the ass?

You asked who I support for 2008...well, there are several candidates who I would like to see as the nominee, because these people could take the General Election by a health margin. In approximate order of preference: Blanche Lincoln, Wesley Clark, Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, Russ Feingold - - there are FIVE GREAT COMMUNICATORS right there! But of course, the corporate media doesn't want us to remember that they exist.

Regardless of whether it's a progressive (Clark, Feingold) or a centrist (Bayh, Lincoln) as the presidential standard-bearer, I would support any of them because they have an authentic connection with Middle America, which is crucial for an effective national strategy. I am NOT supporting Hillary Clinton because I don't believe her political motives are sincere, and she has clearly been orchestrating her entire political career for this opportunity...and I am NOT supporting John Kerry because, although I personally like him, I believe there's too much of a stigma associated with Kerry in regard to the 2004 Election.

But who *I* support is irrelevant, since no one has officially entered the race yet. What I am saying is that this blatant attempt at preemptively coronating Senator Clinton as the nominee (by trying to prematurely knock out all potential opposition to her) is sleazy and underhanded, and I will have no part in it. If the Democratic establishment succeeds in hijacking what's left of democracy by going through with this, they will not receive one iota of support from me.

[Pepperbelly]

182. Do you have any idea how WRONG it is to hold ...

lies against someone?

And make no mistake about it ... each and everyone of those labels you brought up were lies. Once again, bringing this crap into a Democratic board is tedious and raises concerns about the bearer and not the Senator.

Blanche is my Senator. I have voted for her each time she ran and appeared on the ballot. President? I am less than sure about her. Right now, I'd prefer Hillary to Blanche. I like Wesley a lot and would prefer him at this time although I am not certain whether he ought to run.

No matter who we run, the gop will smear them from one end of the country to the other. The only candidate mentioned that could deal with that tactic is Hillary at this point.

[election_2004]

188. Your arguments are hollow

What evidence is there that Hillary is the "only" candidate who could successfully "deal with that tactic"?

Once again, bringing this crap into a Democratic board is tedious and raises concerns about the bearer and not the Senator.

Sorry, but they are going to be factors in the General Election if she's the nominee, whether they're true or not, and whether you like it or not. They will influence the dynamics of the election.

You are so blinded by your starry-eyed worship for Hillary that you are completely disregarding legitimate concerns about her being the Democratic standard-bearer.

Deity help us all if the Dem establishment follows the wayward path being paved by you and your like-minded ilk. :(

[Name removed]

194. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[election_2004]

201. To steer things away from the flaming....

You say I present a lack of evidence. I'd just like to hear what evidence YOU actually have that indicates Hillary would be the strongest candidate? Just wondering...

[Pepperbelly]

203. I never made the claim ...

I do not know who the best candidate will be. If you had noted, before you began flaming, that my personal pref at the time is Clark.

But I do not know who will be best because the circumstances are changing so rapidly, it is difficult to imagaine what the situation will actually look like at that point.

At this point, in fact, it is silly to make any prognostications.

[election_2004]

207. Clark vs. Clinton

The only candidate mentioned that could deal with that tactic is Hillary at this point.

That sounds like an endorsement (for candidate preference) to me. However, for the purposes of this post, I'll suggest that you believe Clark would be the Democrat best-equipped to face the gauntlet.

I agree that Clark would be a strong candidate. And part of the reason why is because Clark will go over much better with people in Middle America than Hillary will. It doesn't matter what the political circumstances are in 2008; that's just the way certain people will be predisposed to vote.

[Pepperbelly]

214. My remark was based on the ...

experience of Clinton's staff in turning the right wing's most egregious attacks. They do know how to deal with it and since they left, the Democratic establishment has not seemed to get the knack of it. Perhaps if Wesley uses their people rather than the standard DNC functionaries, he would have a chance.

The problem has not, IMO, been one of policy or even candidate. It has, IMO, been the result of some immensely cowardly functionaries who are also quite lazy, submissive, and unable to meet the right wing' lies with the appropriate response that does not grant them the predicate of their arguments (ie Why is Kerry so fucked up? He's not THAT fucked up.)

I kind of hope Wesley doesn't run. What I hope is that he kicks back and enjoys his retirement. I do not at all like the ways that they will smear him if he runs and I hope he stays out altogether.

[election_2004]

216. So you think Hillary would make a good candidate....

Not because she's the most qualified of the bunch, or would have the most appeal with Americans, but because she has the best people surrounding her?

[Pepperbelly]

222. Nope ...

because if she runs, she will have the stomach for doing to these bastards what they deseve to have done to them. And make no mistake about it ... those fuckers are terrified of her. Anything you hear counter to that is whistling past the graveyard.

But ... I doubt she'll run.

[election_2004]

223. Why don't you think she'll run?

she will have the stomach for doing to these bastards what they deseve to have done to them.

What makes you believe this?

And do you seriously think she'll decide against running? After all, the pundits keep telling us it's "inevitable."

[Pepperbelly]

225. time will tell ...

but they have been wrong about a LOT.

They don't approach 50% in reliability. A orang could do better than most of these naval-gazing fucktards.

[Cosmocat]

197. She doesn't have a "sordid" reputation ...

AGAIN, that is the R spin ... MOST americans see her fairly positively ... The "sordid" stuff comes from an unrelenting bag of poop hurled by Faux News and any hack writer looking to make a few bucks ...

She is no more sullied than any other politician, and frankly, having weathered a shelling by the right will look even better to people ...

AGAIN ... It does not matter ONE iota who the Ds run up there, the Rs are going to find a way to put some ridiculous skunk on them ...

You post that a decent honest candidate would be a good bet ... Well, Gore and Kerry WERE honest and decent candidates !!! They cooked up some BS about him saying he "created" the internet and made him out to be Edward Scissorhands ... They managed to "swiftboat" Kerry ...

Look ... I am not saying she is THE candidate ... I AM saying Hillary IS a STRONG candidate ... Also, again, I think the safe bet is a Dean/Clark president and Hillary vice president pairing ...

[election_2004]

202. "MOST americans see her fairly positively"

MOST americans see her fairly positively

What do you base this assertion on?

[Pepperbelly]

204. her polling is good ...

except among gops in which, of course, no Demcocrat does well.

[election_2004]

208. Who administers these polls?

And what is the agenda of those pollsters?

You need a lot better evidence than solely polls that are based on superficial name recognition.

[Pepperbelly]

215. look for yourself.

You know where they keep them.

[election_2004]

217. Well....

I have a general distrust of polls (even if they were to reflective positively on my own favored candidates) because they survey such small samples of people that it's unethical and unscientific to rationalize that such small samples of poll respondents can speak for a majority of Americans.

[Pepperbelly]

124. Excellent post! Bravo!

:applause:

[IowaGuy]

160. I'd be real wary of the assumption that Hillary would be a..,

slam dunk with women voters...It's been my observation women are about as polarized re: her as the general voting populace.

I'm just questioning the concept that a polarizing figure (albeit smart, intelligent and all the other good things people say about her are true) is what people will be looking for in our next president...thoughts?

[election_2004]

176. On the contrary...

Pepperbelly and the rest of the "Rah-Rah-Hillary" crowd are in denial, but Americans do NOT look for controversy in a president as a desirable trait.

In fact, someone who is honest and wholesome would probably be a welcome change of pace with the electorate.

That's why I'm supporting Blanche Lincoln for '08:

http://www.lincoln2008.com

I think a Lincoln/Feingold or Lincoln/Warner ticket would be a winning combination.

[category5]

73. Sorry but Hillary votes have annoyed me....

She voted for Iraq war
She backs NAFTA
She will vote for Roberts confirmation
She is talking anti-immigrants

She is NOT progressive enough for me. But she is a
formidable candidate, and I will hold my nose and vote
for her if nominated.

[Pepperbelly]

128. Pretty thin gruel you've conjured there,

I think her record is actually supurb. Check out VoteSmart for yourself.

[EndElectoral]

74. Dismal candidate!!!! Let's hope not.

[applegrove]

75. She cannot be "re-branded" by the Rove WH. Or the Rovbots. Or the

Rove slime machine. That is a great strength.

[mtnsnake]

81. Very good point. There will be no new shockers they can come up with

about her. She's already been put through the mill and survived very nicely. What are they gonna start about her that we already don't know?

[leesa]

77. No thank you.

She hasn't the courage to end this war based on lies...or to even admit the lies she knows were clearly told. Not interested.

[Cosmocat]

91. I disagree ...

First thing she did when she got elected was work her way on to the armed forces committee, getting her resume tightened up ... Also, her position on the war has been that she voted to give the president the power to go to war based on the admin providing evidence that warrented it ... More on that ...

Honestly, I think she KNEW that it was a scam all along, but she knew there was nothing she could do about it ... Again, you have to back to that time, it was less than a year after 9-11, the nation was still in full support the government/patriotism mode, and the Rs were bending people over backwards with it ...

Given where she was, a first year senator and a woman, if she would have broke ranks at that time, they would have just eaten her alive, as they did with others who were on more solid ground than she was ...

I think she is just riding the tide, waiting for things to break ... That is all ... I do not for one moment believe she REALLY thought going into Iraq was a good idea, or that she REALLY supports it now ...

People want to personalize this, but again, completely lose sight of what was going on at the time ... It would have taken EVERY D and some Rs to stand up and oppose the thing to stop it, but the Rs just had their foot on the Ds necks ... It isn't HER fault it happened, it isn't the fault of other D's ...

Currently, SHE can't even begin to end this war ... And, again, until they get some slice of the pie back NO D can ... Jesus, they can't even get a congressional hearing on the freakin Plame outing ...

Courage ... Maybe, maybe not ... But, if she would have broke ranks three years ago, they NOW would have the whole wuss, no backbone soft on defense D AND woman thing to give her a REAL run for reelection up in NY ... She would already be half beat up over it ...

It is easy to be all idealistic and say she lacked courage ... But, you can't win the fight over the long haul if you are not in it ...

It is like Hold Um ... You might have a pocket pair of 10s, but a big raise after you tells you someone has pocket rockets ... It would take "courage" to go all in with the tens, but all that is going to do is get you beat and out of the game ... You have to be IN the game to win it ...

[5thGenDemocrat]

198. My first-term, woman (D) senator, Debbie Stabenow

Found the courage to vote against the IWR and her chances of reelection here in Michigan are pretty darned good. I know I'll happily vote for her again.
Will I vote for Hillary Clinton if it comes to that? Sweet Christ, I hope it doesn't come to that. As a presidential candidate, I think she makes a swell junior senator from New York state.
Frankly, the Democrats have really tested my loyalty these past five years. I've voted D since way back in 1974. My national and world view hasn't changed all that much since then, but I'm not so sure I recognize the party I used to believe in so strongly and passionately any more.
John
I'd probably, though unenthusiastically, vote for Clinton because that's what I do every four years -- vote for a (D) for president.
But looking at it from three years off, I can't honestly say I surely would and I sure hope the Dems don't force my hand by nominating Hillary Clinton.
I'm a fifth (probably a seventh) generation Democrat. If I'm having my doubts about her, I'm certain I'm not the only Democrat having them.

[Cosmocat]

229. Yeah ...

I like Hillary ... I think she is SHARP as a tack ... It is early, and a lot is going to happen, but I just can't see how the country is not going to be a COMPLETE and TOTAL disaster in every possible way in 2008 ... It won't be just about who is running, it will be about who can get the country back from a SERIOUS state of emergency ...

I think Hilliary is THAT sharp, and again, having been in the white house for 8 years when the country was run as well as it has been run since Kennedy, I just think she is the best bet to "save" the country at that point ...

A long way, though ... we will see ...

I fight against the general assertion that the D party has left people down ... I get the split people see between the DLC and the rest of the party, but ... It just isn't like the R party where it is all cut and dried ... The D party is just SO diverse, by nature ... It just is neven going to be unified in total ... People want to fall into the trap of thinking that is bad ... BUT, it is just a function of what is right about the D party ...

The Rs just have taken advantage of the system/apathy of the masses, to make an attempt at taking the country over ...

I do think the standard for pretty much ALL politicians at the federal level has fallen disappointingly low ... The PORK in these last two bills, the energy and transportation bills ... Jesus ... In that regard the Ds are letting themselves sink, also ...

[election_2004]

230. The problem with that reasoning....

I think Hilliary is THAT sharp, and again, having been in the white house for 8 years when the country was run as well as it has been run since Kennedy, I just think she is the best bet to "save" the country at that point...

Except that during the 8 years she was in the White House as First Lady, the Clintons never had to deal with the magnitude of thick shit that Bunnypants has covered this country in.

So, based on the relative "smooth sailing" of the Clinton years (save for the GOP Scare of '94 and MonicaGate)...as far as dealing with the extent of what we have to deal with in the coming years, Hillary would be just as untested as any other Democrat who could hypothetically be elected to the White House in 2008.

[yourout]

79. No way she can win.

"you won't see a repeat of the monumental mistakes of this last campaign of ours"

No you will see all new monumental mistakes.

[mtnsnake]

82. If you're going to make a statement like that, at least back it up

with some concrete reasons why. What did she do in her last campaign that could possibly lead you to say that?

[Berserker]

83. I will never vote for her

She voted for Iraq war and thats enough for me to have made up my mind. NO THANKS

[NancyG]

84. I would vote for her, although

I would prefer Clark as pres and keep Hillary as senator for life.

It would be cool to see the Big Dawg as First Man.

[RobbinsdaleDem]

85. One thing Hillary has that other candidates don't have

is Bill. The two of them campaigning would be a mighty duo.

[Totally Committed]

95. Bill: Unprecidented and Unfair Advantage

From Article: "Never mind the Pollocks as Clinton homes in on that legacy"

Last Paragraph:

"And yet it is still hard to resist the conclusion that, not wholly unintentionally, the two principal beneficiaries will be the reputation of the former president, at last freed from the shackles of scandal, and the presidential prospects of his smiling spouse, dispensing bonhomie among the crowd but whose mind was surely set on securing a whole different set of commitments."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1784318,00.html

This is a re-run of a post of mine from another thread, but it deserves the rerun in light of this spate of Hillary threads, and I am not the only one who feels this way!:

I continue my reiteration that having an ex-POTUS as a spouse is an unfair advantage for a Presidential candidate. Every time Bill does or says anything, he gets press (and she benefits from that). Every time his wisdom and eloquence speaks to an issue, she is seen to share his wisdom and eloquence on that issue. Every time he speaks of her, he is speaking of her candidacy, in one way or another. When he holds a high-powered event, she is always present. She is seen to share his global "contacts". And, it is assumed that he endorses her for that office. (There is a reason why former Presidents do not endorse Presidential candidates... it is seen as and over-powering advantage. His not openly "endorsing" her, however, will be assumed a mere technicality. She enjoys that endorsement without him even needing to speak the words.)

At this point, I only protest. She has not formally announced. But, if this undue influence continues once she does, I am prepared to raise as big a ruckus as one person can about it. It is simply UNFAIR.

TC

[category5]

103. Balls?

[DaveColorado]

87. I would vote for her

She is not my ideal candidate though.

[AJH032]

89. I would proudly vote for Hillary

I stand with her on almost every issue, except Iraq (and I believe by the time 2008 rolls around, she'll see the light on that issue as well). I don't know if I'm going to support her in the primaries or not (still to early to decide), but I think she'd make a great president and I would proudly vote for her in the general election if she's the nominee.

[TayTay]

92. Ahm, yeah, right

This is the person who screwed up the Health care bill so badly that we lost Congress in '94. This is the person who insisted that Clinton not settle the Whitewater case when he had the chance. Ahm, that lead to Monica, which led to impeachment which led to a big and ongoing problem with the Democrats and 'family values.'

Her political radar is not that good. I haven't seen the evidence that you cite at all. I think she is a good legislator, but not the best politican I have ever seen.

[Pepperbelly]

130. Your facts are woefully inaccurate on this.

Woefully.

Your 90s narrative is not even recognizable as what actually occurred.

[mtnsnake]

239. Oh gimme a break. Hillary is no more responsible for Bill's impeachment

than she is responsible for creating global warming, although I'm sure you'll find a way to correlate that to her, too.

[election_2004]

255. She's not "responsible for" the impeachment...

But she raises the spector of "What did other kinds of shady things did the Clintons do back then?"....and ultimately, that distracts from the issue we need to be talking about.

[mtnsnake]

263. Well I'm glad we agree on THAT.

But she raises the spector of "What did other kinds of shady things did the Clintons do back then?"....and ultimately, that distracts from the issue we need to be talking about.

Yeah, and all of Bush's shady past dealings and reports of going AWOL sure kept him from getting elected. NOT.

[election_2004]

269. So because Bush got away with it....

The Clintons should be able to get away with any of the transgressions that they might have committed?

And I thought we were trying to PREVENT the Democratic Party from looking like the party of hypocrisy?

[mtnsnake]

276. Just what "transgressions" did the Clintons commit that you're so worried

about?

Has Hillary been found guilty of some kind of wrongdoing that you're aware of? If not, then why is your tone so accusatory of her as being such?

[election_2004]

281. Because with so many of them...

...it's probable that there's SOME truth to some of it. We just can't say for certain, because there haven't been investigations into all of these matters. And no, it's not fair (as far as the things about Hillary that have been completely made up)...but she's not the first politician whom it's happened to, and she won't be the last.

Obviously, a bulk of the Republican-generated accusations are hyperbole and ludicrous (i.e. Hillary is a lesbian, or most of Klein's whoppers) - - but it's likely that some of them are based on reality, and it WOULD come out...if not during a presidential election, then during a Hillary Clinton presidential administration. Given this likelihood, and the negative reflection that it would have on the Democratic Party as a whole, it's a really dangerous risk to be taking in terms of presidential politics.

That's why Senator Clinton would be much more effective remaining as one of NY's two senators...she can continue to rise through the power structure of the Senate, and eventually reach Ted Kennedy-esque career solidarity while competantly serving the people of New York. She would also help to keep Democratic fundraising healthy from afar, to help out her colleagues in the Senate and in the House, but stay far enough away from making general campaign rounds in the "bellweather" states or red states where negative perceptions of her are likely to rub off on other Democratic candidates. Or, she may very well have a prestigious Cabinet Post in her future, where she wouldn't have to face a coast-to-coast electoral gauntlet.

But if she becomes president, the hostility among members of the D.C. establishment - - and among ordinary citizens - - is sure to fracture and isolate Americans from one another irreperably.

[mtnsnake]

285. Just as I thought you can't name anything concrete. You are full of fear.

You're afraid of what the right wing will say about her if she runs.

You're afraid of what you think COULD happen if she becomes president (see your own last line of your above post).

You're afraid of something that hasn't even happened. You're afraid of uncertainty.

You really do need to stop letting the right wing push you around.

Peace

[election_2004]

286. I did list several of the scandals....

in post #159 above.

You may not want to believe that she and Bill have been guilty in any of those incidents, and I'm not claiming that ALL of those incidents are valid, but they will come up again if Hillary runs, and they WILL haunt the entire General Election campaign and her potential presidency.

[Pepperbelly]

296. bullshit scandals ... What you are proposing is tantamount to ...

giving the gop spin machine veto power over MY party. Frankly, I am not willing to do that. I think it the worst sort of betrayal to do so.

[Don1]

93. Knowing how to play the game

is exactly what will lose it for her. People are sick of political maneuvering. They want a real person with fresh ideas, a personality, and trustworthiness. The trust-part is particularly important since now people have lost faith in their government.

[Township75]

94. Great, one more Dem candidate that cares more about herself than the party

DLC candidates could give a shit less about left wing issues. The only issues they support are the ones they think will get them elected.

If Hillary gets the Dems nod in 08, I will be voting elsewhere, or not voting.

[Pepperbelly]

131. Bullshit ...

your description in your title fits every pol regardless of party.

[Township75]

158. Well then it's not bullshit, it's true...

unless you are saying Hillary is not a pol in a party.

[July]

97. What's the story about taking it to Limbaugh?

I know what he said about Chelsea, but what did Hillary say to him?

[enough already]

99. Forget it

She's ridden his coattails for years. And I refuse to pull the lever for any more DLC bullshit. There ARE alternatives, even in the general election.

[More Than A Feeling]

101. The problem with our candidates is not who the RW hate or don't hate

The competency of the candidate at campaigning is the core issue. If the campaign is good, the candidate can fight off the Reps and win. If it is aimless and lackluster, the candidate will lose. Simple.

We have no more competent campaigner than Hillary. If she gets the nomination, she will win, because her political skills easily outclass anything the Republicans have. Its the reason why she scares them. They feel like if she is the nominee, their defeat is inevitable.

Will she win the nomination? Again, she's a good campaigner, but primary dems will be harder to influence than the general population, because they have prior information and trust their own judgments enough to rely on them. It really depends on how much Wes Clark has improved, and who calls for withdrawal from Iraq.

If Hillary is the nominee, she will win.

[nvliberal]

108. If Hillary is stupid enough to run and win the nomination,

the Republicans will run Condi. Take that to the bank. The GOP WANTS such a matchup, and Hillary will lose big time.

People discount Rice, and Rice claims she isn't interested. She WILL be the nominee if Hillary's in the contest, for there is a movement to draft her. Her mind can be changed if there is a groundswell of support for her candidacy.

The Republicans, run by the PNAC crowd, will not pick a McCain or a Hagel or even a Frist. They want a neocon puppet, and either Condi or George Allen fills the bill perfectly.

[Pepperbelly]

133. That is the silliest thing I have ever read. You can bookmark

this to make me eat my words if it happens but I do not believe that the gop will ever ... EVER nominate a black woman for President.

Never in a million years.

Never in the entire life of the Universe.

Not ever.

Never.

[AntiCoup2K4]

173. They certainly wouldn't nominate Cynthia McKinney....

...or even the Republican equivalent of Cynthia McKinney (assuming such a person existed).

But would they nominate a puppet like Condi?

They made her Secretary of State, didn't they? And given her failures as a national security adviser (most notably 9-11-01) it was hardly a deserved promotion.

No, I could easily see the Republicans putting Condi in the top spot, just for bragging rights. "HAH! You Libruls call yourselves progressive but look who got the first black and the first wimmin folk in the White House!!"

Of course after that a black woman President wouldn't serve their agenda, so the Bush Criminal Empire would probably plan another sloppy Secret Service detail like the one they had on March 30, 1981.

Wonder if they have any more family friends obsessed with Jodie Foster?

[zann725]

109. The use of "hell" is interesting.Yet whatever her "affiliation" with Poppy

...or whoever, I do NOT consider her a true DEM. And while I'd LOVE a female President, I do NOT consider Hilary a "Woman"-identifying candidate. Much like Clarence Thomas, or Phyllis Schaffly...I don't think Hilary identifies who and what she truly is (at her core). And (I believe at least) someone who denies their very essence, can NEVER truly acknowledge the core identity or "interests" of others that they allege to "care" about.

Plus, no matter how much Bill cozzies up to Poppy, a lot of people just don't like Hilary (women included). And I do not think that will change (no matter how much 'good P.R.').

[pepperlove]

112. She'll get one vote for sure

MINE!

[rhett o rick]

116. What is her current stand on the IWAR? Has she admitted making a

mistake in supporting George Bush in invading Iraq? Was she fooled by the "faulty" intelligence? Was she duped by George?

[election_2004]

117. "Hillaristas" should ask themselves this....

Would the short-term gratification of electing Hillary Clinton to the White House be worth the tradeoff of losing Mary Landrieu's and Tim Johnson's U.S. Senate seats in 2008 (along with possibly Mark Pryor's, and losing potentially-winnable competitive races in Oregon, Michigan, Oklahoma, Minnesota, and Maine?)

Or would you rather elect a likable Democrat to the White House who - - although he/she may be more moderate than most of us would prefer, and possibly be more moderate than Hillary - - could also give positive downticket momentum to Democratic U.S. Senate candidates in those reddish/purplish states all across the country?

Because whether you like it or not, Hillary's very presence on the national ticket would HURT other Democratic candidates in a lot of the reddish states that Hillary probably wouldn't be able to carry in the Electoral College.

Or are we just throwing out the "50-state-strategy" altogether?

[lumpy]

118. Hillary is valuable in the Senate.

If the Dems get the prez vote, a cabinet post would add more to her extensive career.

[election_2004]

120. Perhaps as Sec of Health & Human Services???

I agree that Senator Clinton can do a lot more for the Democratic Party by remaining a power player in the U.S. Senate.

And a powerful cabinet appointment would not be out of the realm of possibility for her, either.

[Pepperbelly]

134. and what makes you think that

would happen?

I call bullshit.

At this point, we have no way of knowing the circumstances that will be facing the nation at that point. Hell, it is entirely possible that whoever the Democrats win could carry an FDR mandate into office with the Congress to go with it.

[election_2004]

138. So you want to play Russian Roulette....

...and just operate under the assumption that WHOEVER the Democrats nominate will sail into office as easily as FDR did?

Sorry, I'm not willing to take such a long-shot gamble. Way too much is at stake here. Not just in the short-term, but in the long-term.

We will most likely be faced with another extremely close, extremely divisive national election in 2008. The Left will be motivated and hungry for victory, but so will The Right. And the one thing that Hillary Clinton will do for the GOP - - that lesser-known Democrats WOUDLN'T do - - is her divisive presence will raise heaps more money for the GOP than if a less-controversial Democratic presidential candidate was nominate.

There are candidates WAY less controversial than Hillary Clinton who would have a much easier time appealing to the fickle "swing" voters (soccer moms and NASCAR dads) who would assure the Democratic ticket a victory.

Just because her last name is "Clinton" doesn't make her the Second Coming of FDR.

[Pepperbelly]

142. ok ...

so who is the great hope that will deliver the red states to the blue column?

[election_2004]

162. Just to throw out some names....

Hmmm, well, let's see...

Bayh, Bredesen, Clark, Edwards, Feingold, Henry, Lincoln, Napolitano, Richardson, Sebelius, Vilsack, Warner...

ANY of these potential candidates would have a better chance of bringing in SOME of the red "swing" states that Hillary couldn't win. These Democrats would also help out Democrats running for lower offices in rural and "red" parts of the country...the same CANNOT be said for Senator Clinton.

Schweitzer would be great, if not for the fact that he's only in his first year as Governor of Montana.

Clinton, Biden, and Kerry have too much baggage, and will be tagged as "Northeastern Liberals" from the get-go.

[Pepperbelly]

297. Where are you from?

Your image of what is electorally feasible in the red states is not what I see in the reality of day to day life in a red state.

[Hippo_Tron]

259. Most pundits say that coat-tails don't exist anymore, I kinda disagree

It's possible that the coat-tail effect has simply been replaced by the fact that Republicans now have a better chance of winning Senate seats in red states and vice versa.

But the idea that we will lose these seats just because Hillary is on the ticket, isn't exactly correct.

Mary Landrieu's seat is in good shape no matter who is on the ticket and here's why. In Louisiana, we have an "open election" where on national election day about 10 candidates run and the two highest vote getters go to a runoff in December. The reason that Vitter won lsat time, was that there was little contest and he was able to avoid a runoff. There's no Republican in Louisiana who can beat Landrieu in the first election, it just won't happen.

Runoffs are favorable to the Democrats for two reasons...

1) Louisiana is red on the presidential level and the Republican turnout is not as high for runoffs as it is on the presidential election day.

2) Runoffs are always on a Saturday giving working people more incentive to get to the polls.

Had Chris John taken Vitter to a runoff, Vitter would very easily have lost. John played his cards on Vitter not getting 51% on election day and obviously he played them very wrong.

As far as Johnson and Pryor go, it all depends on the challenger. If Mike Huckabee challenges Pryor then it will be a serious race. But I'm told that Huckabee has presidential ambitions and thus, unless he drops out very early in the primaries, he can't run for US Senate.

Johnson's biggest plus is that the most formidable Republican in SD is Thune and obviously Thune won't be a problem anymore. Johnson also already survived a challenge from Thune, which is somewhat re-assuring.

That being said, air time is cheap and South Dakota and if the GOP can find a candidate that they think can beat Johnson, they will pour money into that race like none other.

Also, I don't see how Oklahoma is a potential Senate race. Inhofe isn't retiring as far as I know and even if he does, that state isn't very receptive to the idea about sending Democrats to Washington. Unless Brad Henry wants to give it a go or Carson wants to try again, I think that we don't have much of a chance.

[election_2004]

260. Landrieu has had two narrow victories...

Landrieu will be targeted, make no mistake...especially if a more progressive Democrat mounts a challenge to her.

I agree that Pryor is somewhat stronger on his own merits. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be tough for him.

It sounds as though you're proposing that Johnson should be thrown to the wolves?

Oklahoma is in play if Drew Edmondson runs against Inhofe. Although there's a possibility Edmondson might wait until 2010 to challenge Coburn.

[mvd]

122. There is a chance she could win by..

getting the Kerry states plus Ohio and New Mexico. New York conservatives have warmed up to her. But I think we need more of a sure thing in 2008!

[election_2004]

126. The problem with that is....

By sacrificing so many of the red states up front, the Democratic Party is essentially throwing red state U.S. Senators (Landrieu, Johnson) to the wolves. Those Democrats be forced and baited into distancing themselves AWAY FROM Senator Clinton, just to keep their seats (or defeat sitting Republican incumbents, or capture open seats) in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House. The Democratic presidential nominee should be someone whom the "red state Democrats" can comfortably campaign alongside when he/she swings through their states on the campaign trail.

Also, if rebuilding the Democratic Party from the local levels on up and laying down increasingly progressive policies at the state level IN THE RED STATES is a such key part of the 50-state strategy, I don't understand how putting Hillary at the top of the ticket will enhance that strategy.

All that Hillary will do for the red states is mobilize local Republicans heavily AGAINST any Democratic or progressive alternatives who are running for offices locally, countywide, districtwide, or statewide.

[mvd]

136. I said that she isn't my ideal choice

But it might not be as bad as some are saying. The problem with your point is that I feel we need a fighter that some red states might not vote for anyway.

[election_2004]

139. It's not really a "problem" with my point....

Because there are other "fighters" out there who don't have the extent of baggage that Hillary Clinton has.

And it's extremely important to be aware of what will happen in the red states based on who the Dem nominee is. It's not fair, but it's reality.

[mvd]

141. But some red states might have to be given up on..

regardless of who we run. That's why I said there's a problem.

[election_2004]

165. You're partially right....

There are some red states that NO DEMOCRAT realistically has chance of winning at the presidential level, such as Mississippi, Utah, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Alabama, Idaho, South Dakota...

On the other hand, there are other "not-quite-as-red" states that have fallen into the red column in recent elections, and these states could swing blue in 2008 if a more palatable alternative to Hillary Clinton is offered at the very top of the Democratic national ticket.

Some of these states could include, potentially: Missouri, Ohio, Florida, Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Arizona, Montana, and West Virginia.

These are also the kinds of states in which I'm sure national Democrats would like to build their numbers of officeholders at state & local levels.

Unfortunately, that won't happen in those states if Hillary Clinton ends up headlining the entire show. Her very presence in the election will just mobilize the GOP too strongly against the Democratic Party as a generalized entity. Even some of the voters in those states who decide to vote for Hillary over the GOP nominee might simultaneously vote for Republican candidates further down the ticket, in order to convince themselves they're being bipartisan by "splitting their tickets."

I don't know how else it could possibly be explained more clearly to drive home this point with the party establishment?

[mvd]

210. Well,

I know Clinton doesn't excite me. However, she could potentially excite Democrats more than Kerry did (she's good at the rhetoric.) My concern is that her record in the Senate is worse than Kerry's. Who's to say her record as President would be better? I still think as a candidate, she might be good enough to win, though. Depends on who the Repukes run.

I think Virginia is out of play for anyone but Warner maybe. Some of those others weren't really that close in 2004, either. Maybe Louisiana will turn blue.

[election_2004]

218. My responses to that...

However, she could potentially excite Democrats more than Kerry did (she's good at the rhetoric.)

That's fine as far as getting the nomination, but what about the General Election. What about appealing to all the voters who don't consider themselves partisan Democrats? The Democratic base isn't the ONLY group voting in the General Election.

I still think as a candidate, she might be good enough to win, though. Depends on who the Repukes run.

That's the problem...we don't KNOW who the GOP will nominate as its presidential standard-bearer, so it's dangerous to assume that it WON'T be McCain (or someone who could do equally as well with Middle America).

[mvd]

221. It's fine for more than getting the nomination

You need a riled up base for election day. If you don't bring out your base, the rest won't follow. I believe she can appeal to more than just the base.

As for your second point, we don't know who EITHER of the nominees are right now. We aren't nominating Hilary now.

I think we agree more than we disagree. Hilary isn't my first choice. We just disagree on some semantics, and I will end there.

Have a good day. :hi:

[election_2004]

224. So the Dem and GOP bases cancel each other out...then what?

As for your second point, we don't know who EITHER of the nominees are right now. We aren't nominating Hilary now.

I realize that, and I wish other people would realize it too. But we all keep being told is how we have to prepare for Hillary's nomination because she already has it "sewn up."

[mvd]

227. If McCain, we'd be in trouble

If someone like Frist, we could capture enough moderates because I believe Hillary has political skills.

As I said, we agree on the main point. The other parts are speculative.

[election_2004]

232. So here's a scenario....

What if it comes down to McCain vs. Frist in the GOP primaries? Or McCain vs. George Allen? And simultaneously, the Democratic Party is trying to decide on its own nominee.

That's why it would be much better to promote Democratic contenders who can win some of the red states, including some of the South - - and who can give at least some positive momentum to Democrats in competitive downticket races in contentious parts of the country. Do you honestly believe Hillary would be able to do that?

[mvd]

234. Possibly. But at that point, I'd just want to win

There's a lot of party splitting anyway. I will agree to disagree, as I'm going to bed.

[election_2004]

258. So does it matter to you...

...who controls the U.S. House or U.S. Senate? Are you not worried about the notion of the Republicans strengthening their hold on Congress too? Or is winning the presidency the only thing that's important?

[mvd]

288. Right now, I think the House And Senate are important

After all, 2006 will be coming before we know it. But we must control some branch, whether it be executive or legislative. I feel that Hillary shouldn't completely be ruled out, and I'm not going to keep posting my reasoning until I get the last word.

[election_2004]

289. What happens if, in 2006....

Let's say the Democratic Party wins a net gain of 4 or 5 seats in 2006. That still won't be enough for a Senate majority, although it will have definitely helped in narrowing the 55-44-1 gap.

In order to secure a Democratic victory in 2008 in the U.S. Senate, is it really worth running Hillary as the party's standard bearer when there will be so many competitive toss-up races that could develop? Maine, Oregon, New Mexico, Louisiana, South Dakota, Colorado, Minnesota, Georgia, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Virginia, and Delaware are among those that could potentially be up for grabs in the U.S. Senate.

Regardless of the results of the 2006 midterms, shouldn't giving the Democrats a healthy Senate majority be among the top three priorities in 2008?

[mvd]

290. As I've said..

I'd rather not run Hillary. But if she does run, the Presidency would at least be something.

[election_2004]

291. But what Democrats seem to be forgetting....

...is that taking back and keeping control of the U.S. Senate through 2009 is equally as important as putting a Democrat in the White House. To achieve that, there needs to be a presidential nominee who will at least give coattails to a decent amount of the "swing state" Democratic candidates who could use the extra help.

The damage will become irreversible if 2008 sees a plummet of Democrats losing their seats all across the country...regardless of whether Hillary is in the White House or not.

[NightOwwl]

145. Knows how to "play the game?" In other words...

an insincere, pandering, poll-driven politician.

Great...just what we need :eyes:

[ProudDad]

146. She would lose

[LittleClarkie]

147. Now this is JUST the sort of thread I try to avoid making as a Kerrycrat

Posting what your favorite pol is doing is one thing, but I agree with those who say it's too early for "rah-rah, my candidate in 2008" pronouncements.

I don't make those re: Kerry.

[mtnsnake]

240. I would sure hope so. We don't need another brutal campaign like

the last one.

BTW, I'm not sure how you got that Hillary is my favorite or "rah-rah, my candidate in 2008" thing. The OP is my opinion that Hillary, if she runs, will make a strong candidate, and a powerful CAMPAIGNER, partly for the reason that she will NEVER let the right wing do to her what John Kerry and his advisors and handlers let happen to him. I base that assumption on how she's handled those RW lying bastards in the past, which she did with authority and without hesitation when the opportunities arose. I also base my assumption that she'll be a great campaigner on what I saw her do in NY, especially in some of the toughest sections of rural NY, where she not only kept the loyal Democrat voters, but she also only won over many voters on the fence, too. She makes very few mistakes from what I've seen, and plays to win. Will she be our most qualified candidate? I'm not saying that at all, just saying that if she runs, she knows what to do and how to win people over....from what I've seen and heard of her.

[election_2004]

253. Your claims

I base that assumption on how she's handled those RW lying bastards in the past, which she did with authority and without hesitation when the opportunities arose.

She was running as a candidate's spouse during the 1990s, not as the actual candidate.

I also base my assumption that she'll be a great campaigner on what I saw her do in NY, especially in some of the toughest sections of rural NY, where she not only kept the loyal Democrat voters, but she also only won over many voters on the fence, too.

That was in New York state, which generally leans blue as a whole when picking its statewide candidates...even its Republicans (D'Amato, Pataki) are more moderate than when compared to the average Republican from other states. So, she already started out with an inherent advantage running for NY's Senate seat by being a Democrat in a state friendly to Democrats.

I'm so tired of people likening New York Republicans and New York "swing voters" to the "swing voters" states that are more red and purple than NY.

[mtnsnake]

261. Look, she did what I said she did, and no matter which you spin it

you can't deny it. All I'm seeing here is you trying to turn something that's a positive about Hillary into a big fat negative. Why is that? On a mission?

[election_2004]

270. It's a positive....

But it's a very small, and ultimately, menaingless positive, in terms of a presidential election.

Mass popularity in blue New York state doesn't translate into mass popularity nationwide.

[election_2004]

254. Your claims

I base that assumption on how she's handled those RW lying bastards in the past, which she did with authority and without hesitation when the opportunities arose.

She was running as a candidate's spouse during the 1990s, not as the actual candidate.

I also base my assumption that she'll be a great campaigner on what I saw her do in NY, especially in some of the toughest sections of rural NY, where she not only kept the loyal Democrat voters, but she also only won over many voters on the fence, too.

That was in New York state, which generally leans blue as a whole when picking its statewide candidates...even its Republicans (D'Amato, Pataki) are more moderate than when compared to the average Republican from other states. So, she already started out with an inherent advantage running for NY's Senate seat by being a Democrat in a state friendly to Democrats.

I'm so tired of people likening New York Republicans and New York "swing voters" to the "swing voters" states that are more red and purple than NY.

[paineinthearse]

152. she'll be a hell of a candidate - so was Ralph Nader

So was Ralph Nader, and we had hell to pay.

[BlueStater]

155. I'd vote for her if she won the nomination

but she is basically my last choice of all the candidates.

There are days when I even prefer Biden over her.

[LittleClarkie]

161. Strike that, reverse it, and that's me.

She seems to have forgotten the primaries and is running for the middle already. Wait til she runs headlong into the progressives in the primaries though. Only frontrunner until somebody casts a vote, I reckon.

[laugle]

163. I'm with you on Hillary, she would make a

great candidate. How I would love to see old Bill and Hill back in the white house. Remember the good old days.... Great jobs, surplus, no wars. And most of all, someone with a brain!!!

I just wish, instead of bashing Hillary, people would articulate weather it's because they don't like her and why or because they think she is not electable. They are different as you know.

I happen to like her and think she is electable. The current polls on her are very good. But it's still along time away and I am not that focused on it right now. Other priorities.

I do have to agree, that for some reason, women don't like her and that could be a problem.

[election_2004]

166. For me....

I just wish, instead of bashing Hillary, people would articulate weather it's because they don't like her and why or because they think she is not electable.

I personally dislike her because I believe she's an opportunist, and I find it exasperating that the cult-like Clinton worshippers have her raised on a pedastol as though she's some goddess.

But from a purely electoral standpoint, I think Senator Clinton could squeak out a narrow Electoral College victory...but simultaneously, she would HURT other Democrats in bellweather states - - specifically in U.S. Senate and U.S. House races.

What good would Hillary's presidency be if she ends up with a Congress that is overwhelmingly hostile to her?

[laugle]

167. Thanks for answering my questions, but

I don't quite know what you mean, i.e., hurt other democrats, in what way?

Also, do you think Bill would help or hurt her chances? Thanks

[election_2004]

168. Bill and Hillary would be campaigning together

However, that will come at a price.

All over the country...Democrats running for the U.S. Senate, Democrats running for the U.S. House, Democrats running for Governor, Democrats running for statewide seats, Democrats running for county offices, Democrats running for district/local seats...whenever it's a partisan race, these Democrats would be challenged to define themselves in comparison to Hillary Clinton as a presidential standard-bearer.

While this might not hurt Democrats in the blue states, Democrats in the purple/red states (particularly in areas where there will always be hostility toward the Clintons) will have a difficult time defining their own candidacies independent from the Clintons' reputations.

That will simply enable strong GOTV efforts from Republicans in those parts of the country, making it easier to defeat the Democratic candidates when they take advantage of people's ill-will toward the Clintons in those regions.

Yes, Bill himself was able to win some Southern states...but that was back in 1996. This will be 12 years later, and some major regional realignments have occured since then. Also keep in mind that Bill Clinton had to deal with a Republican majority in Congress for 6 of the 8 years he was in office, due to the Republican sweep of 1994. I wouldn't be surprised to see President Hillary feel the sting of a similar Republican sweep during the 2010 midterms.

[laugle]

169. Your post is very articulate, however I can't see

that far (2010) into the future. I do know that Bill was a very popular president with 62% of the public not wanting him impeached.

What I am hoping for is to win back the House or Senate in 2006. And of course the presidency in 2008.

Well it is a long way off....we will just have to wait and see....remember all the spin about Hillary when she ran for Senator, they said she could never win...she has always been underestimated.

[election_2004]

180. Again, you're missing the long-term strategy

I agree that we can't base everything on what *MIGHT* happen in 2010, but it is something that needs to remain in consideration. The prospect of having Hillary be the Democrat in the Oval Office in '10 - - in the event of a traditional midterm backlash against the party in power - - is too volatile of a situation to take such a gamble.

Bill Clinton experienced a backlash after his first two years in office (resulting in the GOP Sweep of '04), and it's pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking to write off the notion of President Hillary serving as the catalyst for something similiar, if not worse, in 2010.

You're right that 2006 is important in terms of congressional elections. However, even if the Democrats retake the House in '06, I'll bet you the farm that many of the less-tenured Democratic incumbents in the U.S. House would feel the anti-Hillary backlash in '08 and '10, especially if they come from "swing" regions that are hostile to *liberalism* and/or the Clintons.

Don't even get me started on the Senate. My prediction is that the Democrats will make a net gain of 5-7 seats in 2006 (Casey, McCaskill, Whitehouse, Hackett, Tester/Morrison, and possibly Ford and Pederson), but even with a five-seat gain that's still not enough for a majority (a 50/50 Rep/Dem split still favors the Republicans, since Cheney would be presiding over the Senate chamber).

But let's say, best-case scenario, Democrats have a 7 seat net gain and retake the Senate Majority, 51-48-1 (with Bernie Sanders caucusing with the Dems). A nomination of Hillary Clinton could very well tip the Senator Majority back to the Republicans after the 2008 Election.

You have Landrieu and Johnson, who will have to work three times as hard at getting reelected if Hillary is the nominee. Pryor would probably be targeted.

Then there's the probable retirement of Domenici in New Mexico, with a two-woman catfight between Heather Wilson and Patricia Madrid.

Biden might retire in Delaware, and you can bet that Mike Castle is waiting to swoop in.

Carl Levin may retire in Michigan...Candice Miller has had her eye on his seat for years.

How about if Lautenberg retires in New Jersey, and they find a moderate Republican to target his seat?

Forget about trying to target Cornyn in Texas with Juan Garcia.

Giving a boost to Drew Edmondson, to fire Inhofe in Oklahoma...not if Hillary appears above Inhofe's name on the ballot.

Throw a Gordon Smith defeat out the window in Oregon, too.

Defeating Susan Collins in Maine?...probably not.

Getting rid of Wayne Allard in Colorado?...not happening!

Throwing Norm Coleman overboard in Minnesota?...better luck next time.

Helping a moderate Dem oust Saxby Chambliss from office in Georgia...strike out!

In other words, there are going to be a lot of critical U.S. Senate races in 2008, definitely in Michigan, New Mexico, Minnesota, Louisiana, South Dakota, Texas, Oklahoma, Maine, Colorado, Oregon, and Georgia - - and possibly in New Jersey, Delaware, and Arkansas. These are all going to be crucial if the Democrats want to successfully complete a takeover of the U.S. Senate in 2008 or hold onto a hypothetical Senate majority achieved in '06.

Anyone who insists that Hillary Clinton would actually HELP Democrats running for the U.S. Senate in Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Louisiana, South Dakota, or Georgia is obviously delusional about the electoral realities of those states.

The other states I named are all "weak blue" or "mild blue" states, but even in those states, some voters might be inclined to "split their ticket" and vote for the GOP Senate candidate if they have their doubts about Hillary.

And although 2010 seems like a long ways away, there's another entire slew of U.S. Senate races potentially up for grabs during the '10 midterms: Hawaii (Inouye retiring), Arizona (McCain retiring), Oklahoma again (challenging Coburn), Kansas (challenging Brownback), Colorado again (defending Salazar), Missouri (Bond retiring), Louisiana again (challenging Vitter), Florida (challenging Martinez), Georgia (challenging Isakson), Kentucky (challenging Bunning), Ohio (Voinovich retiring), North Carolina (challenging Burr), Pennsylvania (Specter retiring), Connecticut (Dodd retiring)...all of these are possibilities in 2010...both possible pickups and losses alike for the Democrats.

Do you honestly want to take the gamble of having someone as risky as Hillary Clinton as the national face of the Democratic Party only two years after what will no doubt prove to be another divisive presidential election.

remember all the spin about Hillary when she ran for Senator, they said she could never win...she has always been underestimated.

By the summer of 2000, no one seriously expected Lazio to win. It was New York...a basically liberal blue state. Name one Republican who has a chance of winning the U.S. Senate any time soon in New York.

[laugle]

191. My....you are a prolific poster and quite thorough,

I have a question for you; why do you disable your profile and what state are you in?

For me, the debate on Hillary is a bit premature. For that reason, I usually don't get into debates on her and have not yet posted in the Hillary forum.

Willing to take a risk on her? I'm just not sure about that yet. But as in my previous post, I do believe she is underestimated sometimes. Time will tell....... Thanks for the very informative post. Now it's time for you to take a break! LOL

[election_2004]

192. You're right about one thing....

You're indeed right that the Hillary debate is premature. Unfortunately, the MSM keeps thrusting her into the limelight as "the inevitable nominee" and "the one to beat"...and many nostalgic Democrats longing for the Clinton years and looking for a quick fix are taking the media's bait.

So the corporate interests have FORCED this issue on us, and that's why we need to confront it NOW before it's too late to influence the process.

And what does it matter if I don't make my profile public? Not everyone here does. If you have any questions about my identity, I'd be more than willing to share with you many of the political editorials I've written.

Since you asked, I live in Wisconsin (don't know why that matters to you, though).

[laugle]

196. This is my last reply as I am sensing a real

attitude from you. I let the rudeness go but now you are insulting my intelligence. I don't give a rat's ass what the MSM says, it has nothing to do with my opinions.

You sound like a Hillary hater and I have nothing more to say.

Having a constructive debate is one thing, being rude and insulting is meaningless.

I'm 53 and have voted since I was 18. Your tone is very abrasive and in my opinion serves no useful purpose. It's really too bad because I do find your posts interesting, but tone down the insults and while your at it don't be so damn judgemental! Geez..we all know you are a genius!

[election_2004]

199. Um, you're the one...

...who inquired about my DU profile and made this personal. If you don't want to be exposed to my "attitude," then don't whine when you ask me personal questions and receive answers that you don't like.

I try to engage in a lively and pointed topical discussion, but when people try to discredit me with accusations and unfounded implications, you can damn well bet that I'm going to stand up for myself.

The role of the mainstream media in presidential politics *IS* a major factor, but I guess too many people around here just want to stick their heads in the sand.

[laugle]

212. My inquiry to your profile was because I

genuinely was interested in knowing more about you.

I am sorry you took this in an offensive way. That was not my intention.

If you prefer to be more anonymous I will respect that as that is your choice.

The bad thing about message boards is that it is easy to misinterpret a person because you don't know them. That was not by any means a personal attack on you.

I find your posts thoughtful and intelligent, and you seem to be highly informed.

I hope this clears things up...peace to you.... Laura

I forgot to add, I tend to like to know a little about people I talk with, that's just me...enquiring minds want to know...LOL

[election_2004]

219. That's understandable

If you would like to know more about me personally, I'd be more than happy to exchange my ideas with you over PM or private email.

[laugle]

228. Sounds good to me, be carefull what you ask for!! LOL

I save all my PM's that's how I knew you liked Blanche Lincoln, just in case you were wondering.

You read my Feinstein thread in the CA forum and sent a PM to me re Blanche.

Just remember I may ask you a personal question but with no ulterior motives! LOL

Putting you on my buddy list, don't forget me.......

[election_2004]

231. Go right ahead...

If you have questions about my personal/political experiences, I'm more than happy to answer them for you over PM or in email correspondence.

I have no reason to be dishonest about my beliefs with you or anyone else. :)

[dR. O]

164. well

Hillary will never become president...too many extremists hate her...if she actually won the election they would kill her first

[wisteria]

170. There are a lot of good politicians that are good at playing the

game, that doesn't mean they are electable or even a good choice. I will have great difficulty in voting for her if she makes it as far as our democratic candidate for President.

[ladylibertee]

179. YUP Go Hillary ! ...Clinton/Edwards or Edwards/Clinton

[Steely_Dan]

183. I simply...

...don't see her winning. She has way too much baggage. But I do like her.

-Paige

[Blackwater]

184. One thing is for sure...

the turnout would break all records.

[jonnyblitz]

185. especially on the republican side. nt

[election_2004]

189. What Jonnyblitz said

You can take that to the bank.

[herbbrown]

205. Go back to the Repubs and let us have our party back

She (Hillary) played a young republican, He (Bill) played one in office, although I will admit it was republican lite, enough already.

[noonwitch]

206. She's got my vote, unless someone better comes along

I highly doubt anyone better will come along. She's smart, she's got a lot of different professional experience, including her senate time, and I so want to see the freeper heads explode when she takes the oath of office.

I think she will run a better campaign than either Gore or Kerry. She will not let scumbags swiftboat her without an immediate response. Kerry let that crap stand too long unanswered. Perhaps because she is perceived as having a lot of baggage, she will do a better job addressing the right wing lies as they are told.

[Zhade]

209. ...that I won't vote for.

NT!

[bushisfufkt]

211. Hillary= poison for 2008

I voted for her (moderate) husband and we faired pretty well in the 90's. However, I can not hold my nose and vote for Hillary. I just hate her (her tone, her fakeness, her skeletons in the closet et.., her being even more moderate- bordering on Conservative- than Bill) and I will try my damnedest to convince others to ignore her as well. I want my party back I am tired of seeing it move to the right. Please run again Mr. Dean!!!

[ladylibertee]

233. I'm still leaning towards Hillary.Noone else seems to be worth it

[bowens43]

235. She would be a great candidate from a republican point

of view. Nothing would mobilize republicans like a Hillary candidacy. The republican candidate wouldn't even have to campaign. She has HUGE support in the the Rove camp.

[joeprogressive]

241. I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but

I don't have time to read 250 posts. Never forget that love her or hate her, you can't deny that Hillary was instrumental in the Republican party holding power today. Her 1993 Health Care initiative was the right idea but because it was Hillary, they were able to rally the troops against her. She is absolutely the worst person we could run in 2008 and this is coming from someone who absolutely loves and respects the woman. They hate her and we can't run someone that is going to fire up their base.

They hate all things Clinton because that name reminds them of one of the most successful presidents in our history.

[truebrit71]

242. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

If Hilary gets the nomination, the Republicans are guaranteed to win....

She is an absolute lightning rod for the right-wing across the board, from the rank and file to the absolute nutjobs, and she would mobilize such hatred and fury that she would get annahilated in the GE....

She needs to stay as far away as possible or we are doomed...

[mtnsnake]

243. The "Republicans are guaranteed to win"? How about backing up your claims

with something more reasonable than "She is an absolute lightning rod for the right-wing across the board, from the rank and file to the absolute nutjobs, and she would mobilize such hatred and fury that she would get annahilated in the GE".

Statements like "She needs to stay as far away as possible or we are doomed..." have no basis behind them. How about telling us WHY we're doomed if she runs, other than right-wing nutjobs won't vote for her.

Besides, why are you so worried about right-wingers? Do you really think any right-wing nutjobs you're describing are going to vote for ANY Democrat? There are plenty of people who voted Republican last time who DON'T fall under the category you're talking about, not even rank and file right-wing, and those voters are the ones who our next candidate will have an opportunity to court, whomever she or he may be.

[truebrit71]

244. Above and beyond the fact that she voted WITH the bush baby...

...for his illegal war, apart from the fact that she votes whichever way the wind blows, and I'm saying that as a Democrat...you think the republicans haven't noticed that??...apart from the fact that she's married to the ONE MAN they all hate then the rest of us combined, apart from the fact that the MSM has already decided she will be the Dems candidate, and has already started to smear her (or should I say continue to smear), apart from the fact that the MSM is a bought and paid for arm of the RNC...


Apart from all of that, just exactly HOW is she supposed to win?

It would be an unmitigated disaster if she was our pick. An absolute fucking nightmare..they wouldn't rig it just so that she'd lose, they'd rig it so she would be HUMILIATED...it would destroy the Democratic Party as well...

Sorry Senator, but you need to concentrate on your re-election campaign, and forget the WH.

[Pepperbelly]

248. That's a bunch of horseshit that you've heard on ...

mainstream media outlets and the naval-gazing freaks that haunt our Sunday mornings with their malicious rumormongering. Her record is very, very good.

[election_2004]

252. It's not who the right-wingers will vote FOR...

It's the way in which they will force many untested/novice Democratic candidates to have to distance themselves from Hillary, when forced to share the ticket with her.

[mtnsnake]

262. Ya know what, election_2004? You shouldn't let RWers push you around

so much. Maybe they'll force YOU to distance YOURSELF from Hillary for whatever reasons, but I seriously doubt that they'll "force many untested/novice Democratic candidates" to distance themselves from her because they're so afraid of the big bad right wing or something. Not everyone is afraid of the big bad wolf so much that they're going to let RWers influence who they stand by or who they distance themselves from. Any politician or voter with a spine distances themselves from someone because THEY want to distance themselves...not because the right wing forces them to.

Ya know what else? Screw right wingers. They've got about as much hope of influencing who I distance myself from as the sun has a chance of rising in the west tomorrow.

[election_2004]

271. Oh, I'm not....

But there will be Democrats running for state, county, and local seats in red/purple states, and those elections will get very partisan.

There needs to be a national candidate whom they can run WITH, not AWAY FROM. In potentially winnable races where Republicans already have an advantage, the Democratic challengers (or vulnerable incumbents) need all the help they can get.

How does writing off downticket localized races gel with Howard Dean's 50-state strategy? With Hillary at the top of the ticket, making progressive (or Democratic) inroads in new places is never gonna happen.

[Pepperbelly]

298. You are ignoring the one thing that you should not ...

At this point, all is conjecture and I do not mean just the circumstances of the nation at the time. When the primaries are conducted, we will then SEE who actually runs well and where. In the meantime, none of this serves any purpose and is based on the worst sort of speculation.

[tenshi816]

245. I like her, but I can't see it happening.

Seriously. You can write off all the red states right now.

[wisteria]

249. I've been trying to avoid this post, but it just won't go away!

believe me I can wait for Hillary! We already have a phony in the Whitehouse, I don't want to see another one elected. Dem or not, I'm hoping she somehow decides not to run.

[Boo Boo]

266. If Hillary is the Dem nominee...

Chuck Hagel will be the next President of the United States.

[Pepperbelly]

275. I do not believe that the BFEE

or the gop enablers of them will aloow a non-pnac gop to win the nomination. They would be more comfortable with McaCain who has become a BFEE pod person.

[Boo Boo]

283. You may be right about that. It's certainly the biggest

thing that stands in Hagel's way, I think. He can't count on support from the Bushies, and even if he wins the nom he'll have to get down on his knees and kiss the ring. Reagan, for instance, was forced to choose GHB as his VP at the convention, and his admin was loaded with Bush people.

Still, Hagel strikes me as the strongest candidate the Pubes have. By the time '08 rolls around, being too closely associated with the Nutball in Chief will be the kiss of death, and, for some reason (gut feeling), I think McCain is through.

It's amusing, though, to watch him kiss Bush ass. Hope he liked his birthday cake, because that's the best he's ever going to get from the Bush family. Come '08, it'll be a knife in the back.

[Czolgosz]

272. I used to be a big Hillary fan. Now, I think she serves us best as the

senator from NY. She hasn't got much of a list of accomplishment to run on, and her transparent campaign to re-position herself toward the center seems destined to alienated voters like me without actually accomplishing the goal of drawing moderates and conservative Democrats to her side. If she had remained the Hillary who fought for health care reform back in the early '90s, she'd have my vote, but that Hillary seems to have evaporated in a cloud of "I'm really a moderate" spin. Besides, she seems only somewhat well liked in liberal NY so what chance does she have in OH, MO, FLA, NM, and the other swing states?

[Imagevision]

279. I'd say nominate Sheeham, but she would be assassinated.

When they did JFK? -- that said it all,
"you shouted out, who killed the Kennedy's -- and after all, it was you and me"...!

[Riverman]

284. Screw HER!

[DuaneBidoux]

292. Didn't agree at first but increasingly I do.

But she will be a very polarzing candidate I think we must face up to that fact.

[election_2004]

294. And how will that play...

...in areas of the country where the Democrats don't currently have a lock on the voters? (i.e. "red," "purple," and "weak blue" counties or districts)

Some Democrats seem to want to just forget about those electoral realities.

[skipos]

293. I don't know any Dems who like her or think she would win

[LittleClarkie]

301. I've met more than I expected to

Some of it appears to be fond memories of Bill spilling over. But when I've gone to Dem events, I've met some who would love to vote for her.

[IndianaGreen]

300. Hillary supports the war!

No candidate that supports the war will get my vote, or the vote of millions of other Americans.

The solution to Bush's fascism is not to replace it with the Clintons' corruption.